Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Widows' Benefits

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What plans he has to amend the rights of those widowed at a young age to widows' and widowers' benefits; and if he will make a statement. [145957]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): We are introducing bereavement benefits in April that will be available to both men and women equally for the first time. There will be a new weekly benefit for widowed parents who satisfy the qualifying conditions, and a new lump sum bereavement payment of £2,000, which is double the existing widows' payment.

Mr. Dalyell: Against the background of a sad constituency case from Linlithgow on which my hon Friend has had time to reflect, should a mother who loses

her husband when she is eight weeks pregnant with a second child be entitled to full maternity allowance? Is the anomaly that that case constitutes uncommon?

Angela Eagle: The case to which my hon. Friend refers is especially tragic. He has made me aware of it, and the person concerned has written to me. She fell into particular circumstances because of overlapping benefit rules, which have been a feature of the national insurance-based system since its inception. They enshrine the principle that flat-rate benefits, which are designed to help with income maintenance in specific contingencies, are not added together. It would be unfair and costly if the social security system allowed them to be added together, and I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend that the Government have no plans to do so.

Mr. Roger Gale: I am pleased to know that—not before time—the widow's payment will be increased from £1,000 to £2,000.
The Under-Secretary will recall the case of Corrina Smith of Margate, which I raised in an Adjournment debate last April. As the hon. Lady will remember, Mrs. Smith's husband died tragically in a chemical fire. Mrs. Smith applied for the widows' payment of £1,000 and was told that she could not have it because her application had been made after three months and was therefore out of time. Mrs. Smith did not receive the death certificate from the coroner until the three-month period had elapsed. Has the Department considered starting the clock at the time when the death certificate is issued rather than at the time of death so that people such as Mrs. Smith get the money that they so richly deserve?

Angela Eagle: We dealt with that matter in some detail in last year's Adjournment debate. People can apply for the benefit without a death certificate. The hon. Gentleman's constituent fell foul of backdating rules


introduced by the previous Government, for which he voted. There are no plans to change the current arrangements.

Mr. Eric Pickles: In little over nine weeks, widows will be in a worse position because they will receive only a year's pension. When that announcement is made, the true victims of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 will be known. What provision has the Department made for offering guidance to the newly widowed so that they understand that they have only a year's pension, and not the pension for life that they had previously?
Will the Minister answer a question to which she failed to reply in Committee: how soon after bereavement will widows be expected to have their first work-focused interview?

Angela Eagle: The system is obviously intended to treat those who have been recently bereaved with care and respect. There will be no sudden rushes to force those who are bereaved—widows or widowers—quickly into work. However, we believe that it is important that those who have lost a spouse while still young are given a chance to retrain and to consider how they can get into the labour market when the time is appropriate.

Child Poverty

Mr. Alan W. Williams: What percentage of children live in households in the bottom (a) decile, (b) quarter and (c) half of household income; and if he will make a statement. [145959]

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): In 1998–99, the proportion of children living in households in the bottom decile, quarter and half of income distribution before the deduction of housing costs were 13 per cent., 33 per cent. and 61 per cent.

Mr. Williams: I am grateful for that information. My hon. Friend knows that during the period of Conservative government between 1979 and 1997, the incidence of child poverty in Britain trebled. This Government have done a great deal to tackle that through the working families tax credit, child benefit, the minimum wage and the new deal. How will the new child tax credit help to solve the problem, especially for households with the lowest income.

Mr. Rooker: I apologise to my hon. Friend because it is too early for me to answer a question in detail about a credit that will be introduced in the next financial year. However, it will ensure that help through the tax system is targeted on families who are raising children.
My hon. Friend is right about child poverty: in 1996–97, approximately one in three children lived in low-income households, which was three times the rate in 1979. A substantial increase in child poverty and, as we know from our debates, pensioner poverty has therefore

occurred. The gap opened up during the 18 years when the previous Administration were in office. However, we have taken considerable steps to reverse the trend since 1997.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Given that a New Policy Institute report shows that 500,000 more people are living in poverty, will the Minister confirm whether the Government continue to pledge that 1 million children will be removed from poverty by the general election?

Mr. Rooker: Yes, there is no doubt about that. I was careful that my original answer was specific as to dates. The 1998–99 figures are the latest that we have. We are now at the end of January 2001, so the figures that I gave are almost two years out of date. Substantial changes have taken place—the introduction of the working families tax credit and the national minimum wage, and extra significant increases in child benefit. Given the measures in our four Budgets as a whole, we are absolutely confident that 1 million children will be taken out of poverty, if poverty is measured as 60 per cent. of median earnings after housing costs.

Mr. Steve Webb: Will the Minister confirm that, through the child benefit system, his Department holds the names and addresses of every child in the country, but that when the Inland Revenue tried to send out child tax credit forms, it did not use that information, but instead issued millions of forms, including 1 million to families with no children? Is it not the case that the Revenue did not use his Department's records to get the child tax credit to families because the form would have had to be sent to non-tax paying mothers, who would have had to pass it to tax-paying fathers? That would have made it apparent that the Government are not giving the support to women and mothers, but are transferring it to men.

Mr. Rooker: I honestly think that that question should be directed at my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

Departmental IT Systems

Mr. Derek Wyatt: How much has been spent on new technology by his Department since May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [145960]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): The Department spent £1.3 billion on information technology between May 1997 and December last year. As a result of the spending review, more money has been allocated to replace the ageing IT system that we inherited. That investment is essential if we are to drive out fraud and combat error.

Mr. Wyatt: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he give serious thought to the housing benefit crisis in Swale borough council? We are 16 weeks behind, some people are being evicted from their houses, and the housing association has complained to the


ombudsman. There is a problem with both the hardware and software for dealing with the matter. Is a task force available at headquarters that could sort out the problem?

Mr. Darling: I am aware of the problems in my hon. Friend's local authority. I realise that there is a substantial backlog of claims and that the council is trying to recruit additional staff to deal with it. I hope that that will clear the backlog.
On my hon. Friend's central request, as I announced a short while ago, the Department is establishing specialist teams of people to go into councils where there have been difficulties. The problem is that, although some councils can administer housing benefit well, far too many cannot do so. We want to ensure that failing local authorities that are not dealing properly with housing benefit receive the skills and expertise—indeed, acquire the IT—that they need to administer the system. I hope in the near future to be able to announce the councils that will be the first to benefit from that additional assistance.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Minister's statement that the Department will clamp down on fraud. How far is modern equipment being used across Departments? We have already heard a suggestion that it is not. For example, in a social security fraud in Northern Ireland, a social security worker who came before the courts had 28 or 29 ghost clients—he was ripping off money. Are we using modern equipment to cross-check all applicants?

Mr. Darling: When we get the new IT equipment that we need, we will be able to cross-check information far more effectively. The problem experienced by the DSS is that some of its IT equipment is getting on for 30 years old. I am not the world's leading IT expert, but even I know that green writing on black screens is somewhat out of date. Many of our staff go home to find their children using better IT than they are expected to use at work.
We are systematically replacing the entire IT system at the DSS. As part of that replacement programme, we will ensure that equipment is compatible with that held by the Inland Revenue and other Government agencies, precisely so as to make the necessary checks.
The matter does not involve only IT. One of the best ways to stop fraud and error entering the system is to ensure that the front-line staff are in place, and we have stabilised DSS staffing.
One reason why we will save £1 billion during this Parliament is that we will be getting claims right. When we took over, two in every five income support cases were wrong; we have halved that. If the Conservatives were to get in and cut civil service staffing in the way that they propose, the Benefits Agency would lose 5,000 staff in one year, which would once again open the floodgates to fraud and error.

Compensation Payments

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: How much has been clawed back from social security benefit previously paid in each of the last three years after compensation payments have been made to social security recipients. [145962]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): The compensation recovery scheme recovers money paid to people who have received benefit because of an accident, injury or illness once they receive a compensation payment from the party responsible for causing that injury or illness. The money is not recovered direct from the benefit recipient. The scheme provides protection to the taxpayer, who would otherwise subsidise the negligence of those responsible for injuries or illnesses, whether they are employers, car drivers or other people. Over the past three financial years, the compensation recovery unit has recovered a total of £570 million.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware of the case of an ex-miner from Pontypridd—now sadly deceased—against whom a certificate for compensation recovery for £21,700 was issued in November 1999? On appeal, the claim was reduced to £8,450, and, after several more appeals, it was reduced to £6.38. In view of the unnecessary delay, uncertainty and worry that such cases cause ex-miners and their widows, and the fact that, by now, a large proportion of clawbacks are for less than £10, would not claimants' anguish and the bureaucratic costs to the taxpayer be reduced if compensation clawbacks against coal miners were ended?

Mr. Bayley: Several such cases have been drawn to my attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). Higher figures were initially sought by the compensation recovery unit because the date of the injury had not been established at the time. The compensation recovery scheme provides for the Department of Social Security to reclaim benefits for five years from the date of injury. As a result of the difficulties in the cases that my hon. Friend drew to my attention, we have introduced some changes, about which I notified the House on Friday, in answer to a parliamentary question that he tabled. Those changes will speed up the recovery process and avoid the difficulty of a higher initial claim being made, because we shall seek to establish the date at which the injury occurred before we issue a certificate for recovery.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I thank my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for the considerate way in which they have paid attention to the compensation recovery cases that my hon. Friends and I have brought over the past few weeks and months. May I tell him that his Department seriously underestimates the huge administrative burden, cost and complexity involved in dealing with such claims? There are now more than 130,000 claims, and 600 new ones were received in the first couple of weeks of this year. Given the complexity and the disproportionate cost of claiming, would not the best way to simplify the process be to exempt such cases?

Mr. Bayley: I thank my hon. Friend for his work and for the meetings on the matter that he has had with me and the Secretary of State. I feel confident that the changes that we have announced will greatly reduce red tape and speed up the process. Matters of compensation take time to resolve between those acting on behalf of the employer—the Coal Board, now represented by the Department of Trade and Industry—and the solicitors


acting on behalf of the person seeking compensation. Under the arrangements for the compensation recovery unit that involve my Department, we have just 28 days in which to seek recovery, and if we do not issue a certificate within that time, we lose the right to seek recovery. Progress is being made, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that.
We do not believe that it would be right to exempt miners from the compensation recovery scheme. If we were to do so, it would be unfair to the others who seek recovery, such as the rail workers in my constituency who have died from asbestos-related diseases, or nurses who seek compensation because they have put out their backs by lifting patients. It would not be right to apply different rules to different classes of people.

Ms Rosie Winterton: Will my hon. Friend consider the compensation recovery scheme that may apply to the relatives of people who have died of new variant CJD? The relatives may be eligible for compensation. The compensation has been widely welcomed, but if it is given with the one hand and taken away with the other, there will be resentment.

Mr. Bayley: I endorse the aims of the proposed scheme that the Department of Health is negotiating to compensate the victims of new variant CJD and their families. I assure my hon. Friend that officials from my Department are working closely with those from the Department of Health to ensure that the proposed new scheme fits with the current compensation scheme.

Care Home Charges

Mr. Paul Burstow: What representations he has received on uprating income support capital limits in line with the Department of Health limits for care home charges. [145963]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We received a letter and representations on this subject from Mr. Gordon Lishman, the Director-General of the National Council on Ageing, in November 2000.

Mr. Burstow: Does the Secretary of State understand that the fact that the care and benefit systems are out of sync in regard to capital limits causes confusion for many care home residents and extra costs as a result of the transition from a system that is sustained by local authority contributions to care to a system that is partly funded through income support? That does not put an extra penny piece in the pockets of those in care homes. Will the Secretary of State undertake to discuss the matter again with his colleagues at the Department of Health to see whether the confusion can be removed and the two systems can be made to work better together?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that part of the problem in the social security system is that there are far too many regimes for different benefits. Individuals can find themselves applying for several benefits and discover that the rules are different. We are trying to rationalise and simplify the system.
All new residential accommodation cases will be transferred to local authorities from next year, so the problem will not arise, because there will be only one regime. That will leave us with the problems faced by people who went into residential care between 1993 and now. I am considering those problems, because I want, as far as possible, to try to simplify the regimes for capital allowances.
The Government want to encourage people to save. We are already increasing—and will ultimately abolish—the capital limits for pensioners under the pension credit. However, I want to ensure that whatever we do is consistent with a social security system that says to people of working age that any means that they may have should be taken into account; otherwise the whole process will become extremely expensive. However, I am considering the particular case to which the hon. Gentleman referred as part of a general review of capital limits in the social security system

Mr. David Willetts: With regard to capital limits and income support, can the Secretary of State explain why the savings of disabled people on income support should be treated less favourably than the savings of pensioners on income support?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government decided to increase the capital limits next year and to abolish them for pensioners from 2003. He is also aware that capital limits are none the less imposed on other people throughout the social security system. As I told the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), the Government are considering all the capital limits. However, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) will be well aware that raising capital limits across the board could be very expensive, even for the Conservative party, which is making spending commitments as though there were no tomorrow.

Mr. Willetts: I invite the Secretary of State to confirm as a matter of record that, within the income support system, the rules for the savings of pensioners and the rules for the savings of disabled people have hitherto been the same. Will he confirm that, as from April 2001, he will have one rule for pensioners and will treat disabled people as second-class citizens?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the capital limits have for some time been different for different categories of people. The Government decided to increase and then abolish the capital limits for pensioners. The logic of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that we should reimpose the capital limits for pensioners. If he is suggesting that he would lift the capital limits for disabled people and, perhaps, other groups, let him say so. At the same time, let him tell us how he would propose to pay for that. So far, he has not come up with a single credible proposal for reallocating social security spending or meeting any of the commitments that either he or his colleagues have made.

Stakeholder Pensions

Mr. John Wilkinson: Which income group will benefit the most from stakeholder pensions. [145964]

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Stakeholder pensions will particularly benefit people who earn, on today's figures, between £10,000 and £20,000 a year—£200 to £400 a week—and who do not have access to an occupational scheme. They will also be of benefit more generally, including to some non-earners. The largest single income group that will benefit comprises up to 5 million people whose income is between the figures that I have given

Mr. Wilkinson: Why did the Secretary of State say on 6 May last year in The Times:
They"—
stakeholder pensions—
have always been intended for moderate earners and higher-income earners"?
Surely that contradicts the Labour party manifesto—or is it just a recognition of the reality that the average family must now pay an extra £670 a year in tax and, with the minimum income guarantee, has an earnings-related benefit from the state on which to fall back?

Mr. Rooker: Irrespective of what was reported in The Times, we have never deviated from the stakeholder target group. Those who earn in the income ranges set out in the Green Paper have been mentioned in this House, outside and in Committee. That target group does not comprise the market for stakeholders. The market and the target group, as I have repeatedly said, are different. To confuse the two is disingenuous, and the hon. Gentleman knows that.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Did my right hon. Friend see the example of a personal pension introduced under the Conservative party by Skandia Life? A man discovered that, of the £25 premium that he was paying, £17.50 was taken in commission. When he stopped the premiums, the company continued to rob his fund of the £17.50 and told him that if he wanted to close the fund and take his money, it would deduct 22 per cent. of its value. That is the truth of personal pensions introduced by the Conservative party. The man was also told that if he had had a stakeholder pension, the charge would have been not £17.50 but 20p.

Mr. Rooker: The last part of my hon. Friend's question destroyed my answer. I was about to say that we have learned the lessons provided by the pension robbers who operated under the Conservative party. That is one reason why companies are queueing up to provide stakeholder pensions—almost 30 are now regulated to do so—under which costs to individuals are controlled and capped.
Some say that the public prints are confusing. Stakeholder pensions are so "confusing" that Tesco is planning to take contributions at its 650 supermarket checkouts, and the Trades Union Congress is to provide them. They will take off because they are safe and secure, and the pension robbers will not be able to get a look in.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Surely a Minister who is a member of a Government who extract £5 billion a year from pensions should not talk about pension robbery. Will he explain why, if stakeholder

pensions are good for those earning more than £10,000 a year, those earning less than that will be entitled to the same rebate and not allowed to opt out for a stakeholder pension?

Mr. Rooker: That is incredibly confusing, and shows that the former pensions Minister has not followed the debate. Stakeholder pensions will be simple. Even the Pm says:
The new stakeholder pension is simpler than any pension yet.
They will be widespread and safe, and available to everybody. As I have said, the target group comprises those on moderate earnings of between £10,000 and £20,000 a year who are not in occupational pension schemes and for whom, by and large, there is no other provision. Stakeholder pensions are available right up the income scale and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, are not work-related.
We have repeatedly said that it is up to those who earn below £10,000 a year to decide what to do, but that, all things being equal, they will be better off remaining in the earnings-related pension scheme, which is to be modified next year to become the state second pension, than they would be in a funded scheme. Those without earnings, be they children, non-working spouses or others, are entitled to join a stakeholder scheme.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Many people across income groups who have stakeholder pensions will be required to buy an annuity. Given the poor current returns on annuities, what is stopping the Government ending the compulsory requirement to purchase an annuity?

Mr. Rooker: As the hon. Lady knows—we have debated these matters before—the Government are considering the report of the retirement group's income working party, chaired by my former colleague Dr. Oonagh McDonald. In due course, we shall announce our decisions.

Child Poverty

Mr. Chris Pond: If he will make a statement on progress towards the Government target of eliminating child poverty. [145969]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We are making progress towards our target of eradicating child poverty within a generation, and halving it within the next 10 years. As a result of measures introduced so far, 1 million children will be taken out of poverty. There are now 250,000 fewer children living in households where there is no one in work than there were in 1997.

Mr. Pond: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply and the progress that has been made. Does he fully understand the extent of the challenge that he is facing in trying to reach the targets to which he referred? There have been references to the trebling of child poverty between 1979 and 1997. A quarter of poor children throughout the European Union were here in the United Kingdom by the mid-1990s. If we had a Government who were committed to abolishing the working families tax credit, the child tax


credit and the new deal for lone parents, how long does my right hon. Friend think it would be before we were back to 4 million of our children living in poverty?

Mr. Darling: Many of us remember that for the 18 years the Conservatives were in government, they paid scant attention to child poverty. Many of their policies contributed actively towards children living in poverty. My hon Friend is right to refer to the fact that between 1979 and 1997 child poverty trebled. At the same time, social security spending doubled, as the Conservatives spent more and more on social security because of high unemployment.
My hon. Friend knows that the Government are committed to the eradication of child poverty. We will halve it in the next 10 years. Measures have been announced already, such as increases in child benefit, an increase in the money that is given to children whose parents are on income support, the working families tax credit and the new deal for lone parents. Many lone parents have children living on unacceptably low income levels. Those are examples of measures that are helping to ensure that children have more money coming into the household. We are making sure that we tackle child poverty.
All the evidence so far suggests that the Conservative party, far from having discovered a new concern about child poverty, is committed to policies that would be likely to lead to an increase in child poverty. I am sure that most decent people would not want that.

Mr. John Bercow: The Secretary of State is abominably complacent. Given the evidence that 500,000 more people are living in poverty than when the Government took office, that 2 million families have missed out on the child tax credit on account of what a Treasury official told the Daily Mail was a "bureaucratic bungle", and that no fewer than 85 changes to the regulations affecting the administration of housing benefit have had the effect of limiting take-up and thereby damaging the living standards of children, why does the right hon. Gentleman not abandon his smug complacency and admit that, far from being the saviour of children, the Government have betrayed poor children on a monumental scale?

Mr. Darling: I sometimes wonder whether the hon. Gentleman, when he rehearses his questions in front of the mirror before he comes into the Chamber, thinks about what he is going to say.

Mr. Bercow: I never look at the mirror.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman should try doing so. It might be a revelation to him.
We are the first Government to have set ourselves the objective of eradicating child poverty within a generation. The hon. Gentleman accuses us of complacency, and criticises us, but he should examine the measures that the Government have introduced to combat child poverty and ask himself where the Conservative party stands. If he adopts that approach, he will understand the difference between us. A major contributor to reducing poverty is

an increase in child benefit, which was opposed by the Conservative party, which froze the benefit when in office.
We have introduced the working families tax credit, which makes work pay, but the Conservative party opposes it. The child care tax credit, which will be introduced in April, will mean a £10 gain for parents who can claim the credit. Again, the Conservative party oppose it. Indeed, each and every measure that we have introduced, which are designed to make sure that children are lifted out of poverty, that their parents can get into work—or, when work is not possible, that we can put more money into people's pockets though other means of support—is opposed by the Conservative party. Because the Conservatives are committed to £16 billion worth of spending reductions, it is inconceivable that the axe would not fall on the very children about whom the hon. Gentleman pretends to be concerned.

Mr. Terry Rooney: Does my right hon. Friend accept that workless households are a major contribution to child poverty, and that we need to look at all possible work incentives? In that vein, will he look at reintroducing free school meals with the working families tax credit, as that would be a major contribution to eliminating child poverty and a massive work incentive?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. One reason why many children were living in poverty is that their parents did not work. That is why we introduced the new deal for lone parents, which 200,000 lone parents have already joined. Almost half of them have gone into work or are in the process of working towards work through training and other enterprise. The best way to tackle poverty is to make sure that as many children as possible have parents who are in work. That is why we are making work pay and making work possible.
Of course, we shall continue to look at other measures to make sure that children are looked after and brought up properly in an environment where they are likely to learn. The difference between us and the Conservative party is that all the measures that were introduced to combat child poverty, especially the new deal for lone parents, would be scrapped by the Conservatives, were they to get in. There is one particularly cruel measure: the Conservatives plan to remove all forms of state help from lone parents, once their children are over the age of 11. That is the only way they could save £0.5 billion in their first year of office.

Mr. David Willetts: Has not the real problem with all the Government's anti-poverty programmes been identified by none other than the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)? According to him,
There is a proliferation of programmes with insufficient collaboration between the different agencies involved … As a result we are spending vast sums of money … on the same people through different programmes, without improving their ability to participate in the economy and society.
Perhaps the Secretary of State thinks that those words are evidence of how curiously detached his former colleague has become. Does he agree with his right hon. Friend, or are his former colleague's words already forgotten?

Mr. Darling: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not take the opportunity to explain how removing


benefit from lone parents when their youngest child reaches the age of 11 can help in the drive to get rid of poverty. As for the measures that the Government have introduced to make work pay and make work possible, we have introduced a variety of them, and they are beginning to bear fruit. As a result of what we are doing, there will be a million fewer children in poverty than there were when the hon. Gentleman left office. The hon. Gentleman would have done better to come to the House with measures that would help to reduce poverty, rather than make silly points that do not add up to much at all.

Poverty

Mr. Tony Baldry: If he will make a statement on the number of households living in poverty (a) in 1997 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available. [145970]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): This Government are committed to eradicating pensioner poverty and, as I said a moment ago, child poverty. Our first "Opportunity for All" report outlined the extent of the poverty that we inherited in 1997. In the first two years, the number of households defined as living in poverty stabilised at about 18 per cent, but we expect the numbers to fall as the rises in the minimum income guarantee, the working families tax credit and the increase in benefits for the poorest children take effect. As I said a few moments ago, by the end of this Parliament about 1 million fewer children will be living in poverty.

Mr. Baldry: By the Secretary of State's own acknowledgement, the best that he can say is that the number of families living in poverty has "stabilised"—that was the word that he used in his answer. However, that hides the fact that, quite often, concentrations of families live in poverty in particular wards and areas. In Oxfordshire, for example, those areas include Blackbird Leys in Oxford and Bretch Hill in my constituency. There is a concern that measures are not sufficiently targeted on concentrations of poverty in areas outside the inner city. Will the Secretary of State discuss with colleagues from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and other Departments how more resources can be directed at concentrations of poverty in wards outside the city areas?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which contrasts his position with that of some of his colleagues. I take issue with just one point: yes, the number of households defined as living in poverty had stabilised, but the most recent figures available cover the period up to March 1999. Most of the measures that the Government have introduced came into effect after April 1999, and we do not yet have the figures for that period. As I said, we expect the number of households living in poverty to fall gradually, which contrasts with the earlier figure that I gave, reflecting a trebling of child poverty in the 20 years up to now.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are areas where there are concentrations of children living in poverty. Usually, they are characterised by high levels of unemployment, few employment opportunities, very low skills and schools where children do not attain the

standards achieved by comparable groups elsewhere. That is why we introduced the new deal for communities and employment zones—some of the many schemes criticised by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) a moment ago.
All the evidence suggests that the Government should concentrate the help that they are giving to deal with low income, to make sure that people get into work, to raise educational standards and to tackle health deficiencies and housing problems. All those must be dealt with at the same time, and I am glad that at least one Opposition Member realises that that is how we must tackle the problem.

Fiona Mactaggart: What is the best way to tackle poverty among households that include people of working age?

Mr. Darling: The best way is to make sure that those people can get into work. The problem that has caused so much poverty is that far too many people who could work were not able to work. Many hon. Members know that during the 1980s, large parts of the country—whole communities—were laid waste. They were given no help whatever to cope with the huge industrial changes taking place and, as a result, too many children were living in houses where no one was in work. That is why the Government introduced measures to make work pay—the working families tax credit, underpinned by the national minimum wage—and to make work possible—help with child care and the new deal. All those measures were bitterly opposed by the Conservative party. Every single one of those measures would go if the Conservatives ever got back, and that would mean more children and more households living in poverty. That is not just economic madness, but morally wrong.

Mr. Andrew George: Is the Secretary of State aware that 22 allegedly illegal immigrant workers doing short-term work on flower and bulb farms in west Cornwall were arrested at the weekend? Although that raises concerns about the poverty and quality of life of the immigrant workers, it took place in an area with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, not because the people there are workshy—far from it—but because of the complexities of a cumbersome benefits system, which discourages people from taking up short-term work. What will the Secretary of State do to address the problems that prevent unemployed people from taking advantage of short-term work?

Mr. Darling: I am not aware of the detail of the case. I saw press reports at the weekend, but I have no detailed information about it. From what I understand and from what the hon. Gentleman said, it seems that the problem there is unscrupulous, collusive employers taking advantage of people, getting them to work for them and presumably paying them in cash, rather than employing people in the proper and usual way. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government are taking additional powers through the Social Security Fraud Bill, currently in another place and shortly to come before the House. The Bill will tighten up the powers available to us to stop such exploitation. The other problem highlighted by the case is


the need for the Government to make sure that they do everything possible to stop people entering the country when they do not have sufficient authority to do so.

New Deal for Disabled People

Liz Blackman: What representations he has had from employers' organisations about his Department's involvement with the new deal for disabled people. [145971]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): By the end of last year, the pilots of the new deal for disabled people had helped more than 6,000 people move into work. We are now working to extend the programme. We have consulted widely, including with employers, whose views will help us to target our measures more effectively to support those who currently claim incapacity benefits and who wish to move into work.

Liz Blackman: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that more help should be given to people who suffer from ill health and whose jobs are at risk? What do the Government intend to do about that?

Mr. Bayley: I agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, I feel passionately that the state should be able to help people who risk losing their jobs because of failing health. Under the new deal for disabled people, we have run a number of job rehabilitation pilots, from which we have learned a great deal. We hope shortly to advertise for people to run a further series of pilots focused on job retention; indeed. I hope that we shall do so next week. Through rehabilitation and job help, such pilots will enable people who have been absent from work for six weeks to retain their jobs. Each week, 17,000 people reach their sixth week of absence from work. Those people need help, as they run the grave risk of losing their jobs altogether. Such help has not been provided in the past, but the pilots will allow it to be given in future.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Is it not a fact that, although some Opposition Members may not look in the mirror—a comment that was made earlier—Ministers and other Labour Members often look in The Guardian? Did the Under-Secretary see in The Guardian last week a statement made by the head of public policy at the Royal National Institute for the Blind? With reference to the new deal for the disabled, he said that
the system is very objectionable. It's treating disabled people like guinea pigs and will be seen by them to be highly discriminatory.
What is the hon. Gentleman's answer to that criticism?

Mr. Bayley: I know Steve Winyard well. He did not say that the new deal for disabled people discriminates against people; he asked questions about the evaluation strategy for the new job-broker scheme. We have been discussing the scheme with voluntary bodies and we want to make the evaluation as user-friendly as possible. We are absolutely determined to ensure that it is thorough and robust, so that it will prove the effectiveness of work to help people on incapacity benefit to retain jobs and to get back into work. Such help can then be provided to people on incapacity benefit not on a pilot basis, but on a full-time, regular basis. We need such measures because

the number of people on incapacity benefit trebled from 600,000 to 1.8 million when the hon. Gentleman's party was in power. Those people were simply dumped. The Conservative party left them high and dry, which is why we are piloting the new deal for disabled people. We want to give those 1.8 million people some hope of getting back into work.

Pensioners (Expenditure)

Mr. Ben Chapman: What representations he has received about the amount his Department spends on pensioners. [145973]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): The extra £4.5 billion that the Government are spending over and above the amount that the Conservatives planned to spend has been widely welcomed.

Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is unsurprising that few representations have been made to the Department of Social Security about spending on pensioners, because the Government have done more for our pensioners in four years than the previous Government did in 18 years? Does he agree also that we remain committed to allowing pensioners to share in the growing prosperity of the country as it develops?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. Most people welcome the increase in the basic pension of £5 for single pensioners and £8 for pensioner couples, which will happen in April. That comes together with the increase in the minimum income guarantee, which means that 2 million of the poorest pensioners in the country will be at least £15 a week better off in real terms. Those increases have been widely welcomed. I am sure, however, that the same people who welcome them will be equally apprehensive about the Opposition's proposals to scrap the winter fuel payment and to reduce the entitlement for 2.5 million pensioners, who will lose out as a result of the proposal.

Mr. Graham Brady: How much money each year will the Government claw back from people who reach retirement age and will no longer qualify for the married couples allowance?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman knows that we made changes to the married couples' allowance because we wanted to focus more help on families with children. We want to ensure that the Government's help goes to people on the basis of need rather than status. That is why we made those changes.

Mr. Russell Brown: Having spoken to some pensioners in my constituency over the weekend, may I tell my right hon. Friend how much they applaud the Government's efforts in relieving them of pensioner poverty? Given the time of year, they made particular mention of the winter fuel payment. Can my right hon. Friend outline what he believes the introduction of the pension credit will do for those who fall just above that minimum income guarantee line?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government intend to introduce the pension credit


from 2003. It will guarantee that no pensioner need live on less than £100 a week and will ensure that, for every pound that they save, people qualifying for the pension credit will receive a cash top-up. For example, a pensioner saving £20 a week will get £12 a week on top of that as a reward for saving.
The Government's objective is to ensure that it pays to save. The problem with the social security system that we inherited was that there was a positive disincentive against saving. From 2003, for the first time in the history of the social security system in this country, for every pound pensioners save they will get a credit for their thrift. That reform is long overdue. Not only does it help combat pensioner poverty but it ensures that thrifty pensioners are rewarded and not penalised, as they were for far too long.

Poverty

Mr. Peter L. Pike: What assessment he has made of the effect of measures taken by his Department since May 1997 in tackling poverty in (a) the UK and (b) the north-west. [145976]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): Full details of our policies and the indicators that we use to monitor them can be found in the "Opportunity for All" reports. Some of our indicators can be broken down to look at the regions. These show, for example, that the north-west has benefited from the increased educational achievement for 11-year-olds. Now 73 per cent. of 11-year-olds reach the required standard in maths, rather than the 63 per cent. who did in 1997. We are also seeing a reduction in the proportion of children living in workless households in the region. It is down from 22 per cent. in 1997 to 18 per cent. last year.

Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I have been involved in politics in Burnley for 38 years, and the Government's record in social security and taxation matters has done more to tackle poverty in my type of constituency than that of any previous Government. Will he make sure that, at the election, the people of this country know exactly what we have done to tackle poverty and what we intend to do when we are re-elected at that election?

Mr. Bayley: We seek to tell the public what our strategy is in the "Opportunity for All" reports and what our performance has been in the indicators. As each year passes, the poverty figures improve. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, under the Conservatives the number of children living in poverty trebled. That policy trend cannot simply be switched off overnight. It is like a supertanker—it has to be slowed down, which we have done, and then turned. We are now seeing the benefits of fewer children in poverty in Burnley and in the rest of the country

Miss Anne Begg: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has seen a letter in The Herald today from a volunteer in a citizens advice bureau in Aberdeen. It makes very interesting reading with regard to the figures of pensioners living in poverty. The gentleman worked out that, from this April, a pensioner couple on the minimum pension guarantee has the equivalent disposable

income of someone in work on £16,000 a year. That figure is arrived at because those in work and on that kind of income do not qualify for housing benefit or council tax rebates, but must pay national insurance contributions, must pay into a pension fund and pay for all the other things that a working person has to pay for but a pensioner does not. Does that not illustrate clearly how the Government are tackling the basis of pensioner poverty?

Mr. Bayley: I regret that I have not seen the letter in The Herald, but I shall look for it. It clearly illustrates the point that my hon. Friend made. Opposition Members crow that all that we have achieved for pensioners is a levelling-off of the number in poverty, according to the latest "Opportunity for All" report. However, they omit to mention that the figures in the report relate to 1999, before the introduction of the minimum income guarantee.
We introduced the minimum income guarantee to tackle the problem of pensioner poverty and, as a result of its introduction, we are doing so. I am pleased that some people in the citizens advice bureau in Aberdeen realise that it has made a big difference to the standard of living and the feeling of security of the poorest pensioners.

Mr. Tim Loughton: If he will make a statement on the number of households living in poverty (a) in 1997 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available. [145979]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): Our first "Opportunity for All" report outlined the extent of poverty that we inherited in 1997. Our second report, published in September 2000, shows the latest information available.

Mr. Loughton: We heard the same rather flimsy excuse from the Secretary of State in response to question 12 a short time ago. If the incidence of poverty is not declining at a time when we are constantly being told that the economy is booming, what hope will we be able to hold out when the economy starts on a downturn? The hon. Gentleman's answer is in strict contrast to the studies carried out by the Joseph Rowntree Trust, which show a great increase in poverty.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of my pensioner constituents in Worthing are among the 500,000 extra people who are now, according to the trust, living in poverty? Is he also aware that many of them are missing out on the benefits to which they are entitled because the Government have enormously complicated the way in which benefits are administered through the Benefits Agency and local authorities? When will the Government do something serious to make the system more transparent and accessible to the most vulnerable, especially pensioners?

Mr. Bayley: If the hon. Gentleman was doing as much to help pensioners in poverty as some Labour Members, he would know that the number of pensioners living in poverty has substantially decreased as a result of the introduction of the minimum income guarantee. If he did his homework, he would know that the figures in the "Opportunity for All" report—which show a static


position—are two years old, as are the figures in the Joseph Rowntree Trust's report. Had he read the "Opportunity for All" report, he would know that. I suggest that he read it, so that he may come better informed to Question Time next month.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: My hon. Friend knows my constituency well. I have been doing my homework: I was with representatives of Age Concern on Friday. They told me that about 700 pensioner households in the Scarborough area are still, for whatever reason, classified as being in poverty, on the measures that they use. The main problem is that households do not claim payments to which they are entitled. Will the Minister offer me and the field-workers from Age Concern some advice on how to persuade those 700 households that they are entitled to this help, and that it would not constitute a handout?

Mr. Bayley: The Government have run the largest ever take-up campaign for pensioners. Record numbers of pensioners have applied for the minimum income guarantee and are getting it as a result. I hope that that has made a difference in my hon. Friend's constituency.
I join my hon. Friend in wanting to ensure that the message gets across that the minimum income guarantee is not a discretionary payment but an entitlement for pensioners on low incomes, and we are determined that such pensioners should receive it. I should be more than happy to visit my hon. Friend's constituency to talk to the representatives of Age Concern about how we can ensure that the campaign is a success.

Winter Fuel Allowance

Mr. Denis MacShane: How many pensioners in the United Kingdom have benefited from (a) the winter fuel allowance and (b) the free television licence. [145981]

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Around 11 million winter fuel payments have already been made to those entitled to them—the vast majority were made before Christmas. We are still receiving and processing claims for this winter's payments, particularly from men aged between 60 and 64. Winter fuel payments are made to people living in England, Scotland and Wales. Northern Ireland has mirroring provisions. We estimate that some 3.7 million pensioner households in Great Britain qualify for a free television licence. All those provisions would be lost under the Tories' proposals, as would the 10,000 winter fuel payments made in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. MacShane: On this freezing January day, is not it right to remind the country that the extra help that we give to pensioners will be taken from them if the Conservative party ever gets anywhere near power? Specifically on television licences, is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern about the activities of a BBC Gestapo unit that goes around removing the free licence of people who live in sheltered accommodation because of some small change in their living arrangements? Will he make clear to the BBC my concern, which I am sure is shared by other hon. Members, that that practice should stop, that pensioners aged over 65 who have the right to a free licence should keep it and that the view of many hon. Members is that the BBC licence fee will be increasingly hard to justify if the removal of the free licence for over-65s continues?

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Indeed, the discrepancy over the licence rules for sheltered housing was raised with my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) and me when I was applauded by pensioners in Chorley on Friday for the winter fuel payment, the free television licence and the forthcoming massive increase in the basic state retirement pension, which is already appearing in the new pension books being sent out to pensioners. The matter concerns all Members of Parliament and, indeed, the BBC. One way or another, it will have to be resolved in due course.

Earthquake (India)

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): On Friday 26 January, a major earthquake measuring 6.9 on the Richter scale occurred in western India. The epicentre was 50 km north-east of the town of Bhuj in Gujarat state. It affected an area as large as Wales and was felt in Pakistan, Nepal and southern India.
The latest estimates are that more than 20,000 people are presumed dead, thousands more are missing and some 50,000 are reported injured. Initial reports suggest that 500,000 have been left homeless. As serious aftershocks continue, hundreds of thousands of people are living outside their homes. Aftershocks are also hampering the search and rescue and relief effort. Provision of water is a particular problem in Bhuj. Aerial assessments carried out by the Government of India, in which staff from my Department participated, described the situation in many areas as "utter devastation". According to the Indian authorities, 95 per cent. of buildings in Bhuj are no longer habitable and many villages are completely flattened.
Infrastructure such as roads, bridges, railways, communication systems and electricity lines have been severely affected and an oil slick is affecting operations at the oil terminal at Kandla port. Communication with Bhuj is gradually being restored using satellite. Indian police are leading the search and rescue effort, aided by 5,000 Indian military personnel. Priorities are water, shelter, blankets and food. The Indian authorities are mobilising significant resources to address those needs. That is being supported by international relief assistance, which has started to arrive.
I am sure that the whole House would wish to join me in expressing our deep sympathy and concern to the people of Gujarat and their relatives and friends in Britain and elsewhere. The Queen and the Prime Minister have sent messages of sympathy to the Government of India.
The Department for International Development's emergency response centre has been working round the clock since the earthquake struck. We dispatched a UK search and rescue team of 69 people comprising 25 UK fire service volunteers from Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Greater Manchester, Chester and Leicestershire and specialist non-governmental organisation personnel. The Ministry of Defence provided a plane at a cost to my Department—I thought that the House may want to know this—of £98,000. Officials from my Department led the team. They arrived in Bhuj at 8 am UK time on 28 January and started work within 15 minutes. At present, they are targeting some of the worst-affected buildings. They are working in close co-operation with the Indian authorities and have so far managed to rescue four people alive.
Also in a joint operation with my Department, 75 search and rescue personnel from the Russian Ministry of Emergencies arrived in Bhachau on 28 January and have rescued eight persons to date. They also have with them an airmobile hospital. A second Russian aircraft, part-funded by my Department, is awaiting clearance from the Indian authorities to bring in 3,280 blankets and 45 family tents.
A United Nations disaster assessment co-ordination team, including one United Kingdom member, has also been dispatched, and will commence operations as soon

as possible. Two disaster assessment experts from my Department have helped to organise the nongovernmental organisations' relief co-ordination meeting, and have helped with aerial reconnaissance. The focus of the effort is now moving from search and rescue to the organisation of relief. All existing systems have broken down. People lack housing, blankets, clothes, food and water. We must ensure that those who survived the earthquake are cared for until normal systems can be restored.
My Department has spent £2 million on the provision of immediate relief, and a further £1 million will be allocated today. As the House knows, what is important is not general pledges of money but disbursing the money now, and providing services on the ground in Gujarat now. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has today agreed to make available £9 million from the reserve, so that we can allocate a total of £10 million to support the emergency relief effort without reducing our spending in other parts of India. We will also work in Brussels and elsewhere to ensure that other development agencies make appropriate funding available.
The Indian Government are well organised and are providing food, army personnel, heavy lifting equipment, mobile operating theatres and medical supplies, but the scale of the emergency is such that some of the resources needed cannot be supplied in the region. We are therefore also arranging to fly out three aircraft carrying 1,200 tents and other shelter items from the Department's emergency stockpile in Staffordshire. A fourth aircraft will be dispatched today from Ostend via Brindisi, carrying 10 sets of trauma equipment and plastic sheeting.
This is a very serious disaster. Organisation by the Indian Government is good, but international help is needed to ensure that all who survived the earthquake, but have lost everything, are provided with health care and other basic essentials until they can rebuild their homes and livelihoods.

Mr. Gary Streeter: I thank the Secretary of State for coming to make the statement, and for letting me have a copy earlier.
Let me underline the deep shock and sadness of Conservative Members, and express our sympathy for all who have suffered in this major disaster. The tragedy is brought much closer to home for all of us by the certain knowledge that all over the United Kingdom there will be British citizens who have lost family and loved ones in India—perhaps even in Pakistan—and who are waiting desperately for news of missing relatives. I pay tribute to the Department's rapid response in releasing resources and supporting the dispatch of the British specialist search and rescue teams that are now doing such impressive work in Gujarat, and I pay tribute to the Secretary of State's hard-working officials.
I emphasise that Conservative Members will support any reasonable steps taken by the Government to deal with either the short-term crisis or the longer-term need for restoration work. I know it is early days, but can the Secretary of State say anything at all about the part that Britain might play in the longer-term regeneration that will be necessary? Will the Department support the Indian Government's request to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank for substantial help?
The Secretary of State mentioned the need for shelter, blankets, clothes, food and water. Can she say a little about her assessment of the scale of those requirements—especially in the more remote areas, some of which have not yet received any help at all? Can she also say something about her Department's assessment of the risks of disease? What support can we give to help with medical supplies?
Does the Secretary of State agree that as we enjoy a very close and special relationship with this Commonwealth country, it is right and proper for Britain to be at the forefront of the humanitarian aid effort? I welcome the co-operation between her Department and the Ministry of Defence in making aircraft available.
Can the right hon. Lady say a little more about how the £3 million of aid that we have made available will be disbursed? May I repeat the concerns that I mentioned during discussion on El Salvador about the pumping of our aid through United Nations agencies? I suspect that the right hon. Lady has not done that this time, but does she agree that, more often than not, NGOs and charities based on the ground are the right vehicles for British taxpayers' funds?
Does the Secretary of State agree that although earthquakes are inevitable, death on this scale is not? Does she agree that much more needs to be done the world over in terms of earthquake preparedness? Given that India is by far the largest recipient of British aid, does she ensure that disaster management forms part of the on-going dialogue between our two countries? During her recent trip to India, did she have discussions with Indian Ministers about disaster management? If so, can she say a little about that?
I again thank the Secretary of State and her Department for their rapid response—which is made on behalf of all of us—to a very serious disaster.

Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I agree with him very much that the British people can feel proud that we—with some of the fine officials in my Department—are among the fastest in the world in responding to this type of emergency. We can be proud, too, of the fact that British fire fighters and others working in search and rescue operations will drop everything at a moment's notice and fly around the world to try to help people in distress. I think that we are all proud to live in a country that can make such an effort.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman—we are very aware of this—that the families of very many British citizens originated in that part of India. As telephone and other systems have broken down, people here have been unable to receive news of their family in India and are deeply anxious. They are of course devastated and we feel very deeply for them.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the part that we will play in the longer term. As we tend to move faster than others and can get on site very quickly, we will probably make a lot of the early, up-front provision. We can then ensure that organisations such as the European Community make resources available. It will be some months before the big reconstruction effort can begin. People have lost their houses and absolutely everything else, and they will have to be provided with health care and food before the reconstruction effort can start.
It is the reconstruction effort that the IMF and the World Bank will have to help with. I met World Bank authorities recently when I was in India, and they are hoping and planning to increase their support and lending to India. We have also been talking about assisting the bank to be able to deploy more resources in India. I think that we can continue those conversations to ensure that Gujarat receives help for the reconstruction effort.
The hon. Gentleman is right that, in some villages, everything has been destroyed. An aerial reconnaissance has been conducted, but no help has yet been provided to people in some smaller communities which have lost everything. The relief effort has to spread very rapidly. We should remember, however, that very considerable territory—an area the size of Wales—has been devastated and that some of the villages are remote.
There is always a risk of disease after a major disruption, when water, sanitation and health systems are affected. That is why the big relief effort is now focused on ensuring that those who survive do not become ill and perhaps—after surviving the earthquake—die because of a lack of support.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that all United Nations agencies are inefficient. UNICEF, for example, is an extremely efficient agency that is particularly good at water supply, which is an issue in this case. We shall use whatever agencies are already present and able to operate in the locality. That is what we always do. It is no good giving grants to non-governmental organisations that are still in the United Kingdom and not in the country concerned. We have to see who is already in the country and provide to them.
The Red Cross was the fastest to the scene and we provided it with the first grant. Blankets are needed, as it is quite cold in that part of India and people are sleeping outside their houses. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall provide to those agencies that are efficient, already at the scene and can get material through to people. However, only the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs can do the co-ordinating job. It can get in there, assess the situation and make calls around the world to ensure that the effort is co-ordinated and resources are not unnecessarily duplicated.
I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman's final point—we are working on the matter throughout the world system—that earthquakes and other disasters are acts of nature or of God, and that perhaps there will be more of them because of greater global warming, atmospheric turbulence and increasing world population, which forces people on to more marginal land. However, people's chances of surviving a disaster depend on local disaster preparedness. Systems in countries around the world have to be strengthened so that people are always there, ready to move instantly. When people are under rubble, it is no good waiting for people and materials to be flown in from elsewhere in the world. We need to have local people who can move very rapidly to the rescue.
As I said, the Indian Government's efforts are very good and organised. However, it is a phenomenal disaster.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I express support for the fact that my right hon. Friend did say that the Indian Government and the Indian authorities were well organised? I went last night to a big meeting in the


constituency of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary which was hosted by the police for our Asian communities, and gentle sadness was expressed that the attitude of much of the British press had been somewhat patronising towards the organisation of the Indian authorities. As a member of the Budget Committee of the European Union, I have seen the effects of an earthquake days after it happened. Anyone who has seen that knows that the effects are stunning and appalling. People cannot be well organised, so I am glad that she paid tribute to the Indian authorities.
My right hon. Friend also referred to the oil slick. We have great expertise in such matters, so is British expertise being sent to do something about the slick, which is a real problem?

Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right to say that there is always a tendency for the media to look for someone to blame; they say, "If only there were not all this chaos and disorganisation, it would all be okay." This was a natural disaster of monumental proportions. People were going to be hurt and there was nothing anyone could do to stop that. However, we can respond quickly to people's needs. The Indian Government's lead has been excellent and we have been fast in assisting, which makes a lot of difference. In other countries where disasters have occurred and where there has been bad local organisation, there has been much more disruption, death and ill-health because of the follow-on chaos. In this case, not every village has been reached, but the organisation is good. That is a blessing and the Indian Government are to be congratulated.
The oil slick to which my hon. Friend refers has been caused by a fracture in a tank, as a result of the earthquake. I do not know whether we have offered help, but I shall find out and get back to him.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: My party wishes to join all hon. Members in sending sincere condolences to the Hindu communities affected by the earthquake, both here and in India. We commend the speedy action by organisations such as the UK search and rescue team and the £10 million of assistance pledged by the British Government. We commend also the action taken by the Gujarat communities in the United Kingdom which, amazingly quickly, have established appeals and information centres for Gujarati people who live in this country.
With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), are any specific measures being taken to combat cholera which no doubt will spread if the water supply is not secured? Does the Minister agree that it is buildings, not earthquakes, that kill people? Can we have an assurance that any reconstruction that takes place with money from this country will involve the building of earthquake-resistant buildings? Can the Government help the relatives from this country to get information about their relatives in India or to go out there to join other family members?

Clare Short: The Red Cross issued an early appeal and, if people want to give, the Red Cross is efficient, on the ground and getting help through. People should be proud that their tax money is contributing, as the £10 million is taxpayers' money. Every British citizen

is making a contribution—as they would want—and everyone should be aware of that. That sum is greater than the voluntary donations, welcome though those are.
Many measures have been taken to deal with health problems and possible cholera. The major hospital in Bhuj was flattened, but there is a military hospital and mobile hospitals. A lot of effort is being made to provide health care and prevent the spread of disease. On whether buildings and not earthquakes kill people, we have no evidence of the really dreadful building that was seen following the earthquake in Turkey, although we will find out more as the information comes in. However, many villages with traditional low-rise buildings have been flattened, too. It is a question not of bad building, but of a dreadful earthquake.
On reconstruction, the Indian Government will wish to learn lessons about what kind of buildings should be built. It will take big support from the IMF and the World Bank; we must remember that an area the size of Wales will have to be rebuilt. The UK aid budget will not be enough and major resources will be required. Gujarat is not one of the poorest areas of India and local resources can be mobilised.
The Foreign Office is providing all the help and information to relatives that it can. Satellite communications have been established and telephone calls are getting through. However, I would not advise people to go out to look. The area is in chaos, and it would not be helpful. I understand how worried relatives must be, but if lots of people start arriving, it will add to the strain on airports and make matters worse.

Dr. Brian Iddon: I represent a large Gujarati community, and I add my expressions of sympathy to those of my right hon. Friend, especially to those directly affected, whether they are living in Gujarat, in Bolton or anywhere else. The local community has mobilised very quickly, and the first shipment of clothing and blankets is due to leave Bolton this afternoon. Will my right hon. Friend do everything in her power to help those communities to get goods and finance through to Gujarat as quickly as possible?

Clare Short: Many people in the UK have families in Bhuj, where 95 per cent. of the buildings have been destroyed, so there must be terrible worry in our communities, and we all feel deeply about that, but it is much better to offer money than goods, because of the shipping costs and the organisational effort. I appeal to those who want to help to give money, which is much more flexible. We will then be able to purchase vast supplies of what is needed. The bulk of clothing and other goods makes all the arrangements more difficult. I hope that all hon. Members will encourage their communities to provide money rather than goods.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the report that the Secretary of State has given us. On behalf of my colleagues, I express our sympathy, too. As minister of a church that has been closely associated with work in Gujarat for about 150 years, I know something of what the people there are going through. I know that the House will also feel sympathy with and empathy for the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), because I understand that his family background is in Gujarat.


In the light of press reports that there are some in the Gujarat authorities who want to go ahead with clearing away the rubble, I urge the Secretary of State at least to encourage them to let the searchers continue, in the light of experience elsewhere, where some miraculous escapes have taken place. We understand why they want to get on with clearing up, but it is equally important to consider searching for those who may still be alive. We will pledge our support at any level to the Department, as it continues to co-operate with others in the search and rescue and rebuilding operations.

Clare Short: Yes, indeed, we learned in Turkey that it is extraordinary how long people can survive under the rubble. India has provided a lot of military personnel, but outside teams have the expertise and the listening equipment. Some villages have not yet been reached. We must be careful to save all the lives that we can. Obviously, time is running on, and we all worry about that, but I completely agree that we must save every life that can be saved.

Mr. Barry Gardiner: There are 10,000 families of Gujarati origin in my constituency, and approximately 3,000 specifically from Bhuj. As can be imagined, the whole community, especially in Wembley and Kenton, has been traumatised by recent events.
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement, and in particular for the increase to £10 million in the money that is to be made available. Will she ensure that there is co-ordination of local community relief efforts in this country, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) said, are already under way? I understand her point that it is much better to contribute money, because that can buy the necessary goods that are immediately available on the ground, but communities have already mobilised and collected blankets and foodstuffs to send, and there will be an understandable frustration if all the efforts that relatives here have made appear to be thwarted and not to be productive.
My right hon. Friend said that Gujarat was one of the wealthier states in India. That is true: it has a £29 billion development programme of inward investment. Will she consider not only the immediate relief but how Britain can be involved in the long-term programme of building that will be necessary in the state?
My right hon. Friend spoke about remote villages and the need for the relief effort to reach them. Many families in my constituency who have been contacted by their relatives have been told that nothing is happening in the remoter villages. I urge my right hon. Friend to expand the efforts to reach the British citizens' relatives who are trapped and without relief. I also urge her to liaise with her Cabinet colleagues about any counselling that is available to relatives in this country who are traumatised by events in India.
I thank my right hon. Friend for her remarks about the Indian Government, who have made every effort to provide telecommunications for people to contact their relatives. I believe that 2,000 lines have been made available, and I want to record the praise of my

community for the Indian Government and also for Sewa International, the Indian charity that is doing much to co-ordinate work on the ground.

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am sure that we all feel for his constituents. I stress that I am grateful to the Treasury for the £10 million. We are nearly at year's end, and all our money in India is programmed. We were therefore planning to redeploy money that would otherwise be spent elsewhere on other poor people in that country. However, the Treasury came forward with extra money, and I am very pleased about that.
I understand my hon. Friend's comments about people who have collected blankets and foodstuffs. However, I ask anyone who has done that to consider selling them and giving money instead. I am sorry, but it is not right to use resources inefficiently simply to make people feel better when it is desperately urgent to get money to buy food and other necessities. Some people have lost everything; they have simply walked out of their houses. They have no clothes and it is cold. We cannot make ourselves less efficient in those circumstances, and we will not be able to send bulk supplies. I therefore encourage people to give money to the Red Cross or other agencies that are working in India. I am sorry to disappoint people, but the point is important; this is about saving people's lives.
My hon. Friend is right about the massive rebuilding effort. As I told the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), it will take a great deal of resources. We shall therefore look to international agencies to which we contribute, such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, to provide large, long-term loans with a low rate of interest to accomplish the enormous rebuilding effort. We work with both banks in India. Apart from our existing commitments to those institutions we will do any partnering that we can to help them bring their programmes forward.
I agree with my hon. Friend about the remote villages. The effort to reach out is happening now. Everything happened so fast, and it is true that some villages have not been reached. We must do everything in our power to get to those people.

Mr. Tony Baldry: I think that everyone would commend the Chief Secretary on providing the £10 million so speedily. As the Secretary of State says, a massive rebuilding effort will be required, backed by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. After the Turkish earthquake, the Minister for Housing and Planning led a construction mission to Turkey. The United Kingdom construction industry is carrying out much rebuilding in the earthquake zone in Turkey. Could the right hon. Lady liaise with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to establish whether there is again scope for the UK construction industry to contribute in the Indian earthquake zone?

Clare Short: Yes, indeed. I hope that everyone will welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) to the Front Bench to speak on international development. He said that a Minister from DETR had telephoned earlier on the very matter that the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) raised. We must be ready to go, but we must not go too early and get in


the way. Let us get the relief effort organised first. When people can turn their minds to reconstruction, that will be the right time to move.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I recognise that most of the tragedy has occurred in India, and, as secretary of the all-party Pakistan group, I extend sincere sympathy to all who are affected. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an opportunity not only for the Commonwealth to respond positively, but for Pakistan, India's nearest neighbour, which is also affected, to work with India, despite those countries' differences, to tackle the tragedy?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is my understanding that, because buildings tumbled, there has been some loss of life in Pakistan and Nepal—but on nothing like the same scale. My hon. Friend is right: if any help can be offered to Gujarat from Pakistan, I am sure that Pakistan would want to consider that. My hon. Friend's suggestion will have been heard and I am sure Pakistan will do what it can to help.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her Department's initial response and, with other right hon. and hon. Members, echo her remarks about the performance thus far of the Government of India. Clearly, this matter is a priority for the UK because of our historic trading and family relations with India. However, as half our aid is disbursed through the European Union, will she tell us how the matter can be made to have the same priority for the EU that it so clearly has for us?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right: a third of our development budget goes through the EU. We are in touch with Brussels and I think—I speak from memory—that about 3 million euros have been pledged. That is not in proportion to the need, so we shall hold further talks both about the size of the pledge and about speed. Often, in such disasters, Governments make pledges, but it takes months and months before anything arrives and it is then discovered that the money was already in their budget for India in any case. We must make sure that the money is new money and that it is rapidly disbursed—we shall be working on that.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend referred to 3 million euros. That is an extremely small amount—incredibly small. Is my right hon. Friend aware of how much individual EU nation

states are allocating, bilaterally? Is that information in her departmental briefing? What co-ordination will there be with states outside the EU structure to ensure that there is no overlap?

Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend. As I said, I spoke from memory; the figure was mentioned in a meeting and I think that it was 3 million euros. It is not enough in proportion to the need.
At present, a Swiss search and rescue team is in the area—because of the geography of Switzerland, the Swiss are extremely good at such work. The Russians are there; they too are good at that work, because of the size of their country. They have never previously operated internationally, but we have linked up with them and they are going to undertake more of that work.
I do not yet have information about pledges from EU member states. We shall find out, and I shall let my hon. Friend and the House know about that. During the next few months, we shall need a great deal of resources for emergency relief. All development agencies throughout the world will need to contribute because so many people are affected. We shall encourage everyone to do so. I shall keep the House informed.

Dr. Julian Lewis: I congratulate the right hon. Lady and her Department on the fast action that they have taken. She touched briefly on one aspect of co-operation with the Ministry of Defence. Is she satisfied that arrangements for co-operation and co-ordination between her Department and the MOD are working well? In particular, were there other major MOD assets in the area—such as naval units—that might have been able to help? Have any steps been taken in that direction?

Clare Short: Yes, I am pleased to be able to say that, since the discussions on the Mozambique disaster, arrangements are better and the price is better. I am grateful to the House for securing the outcome that I think everyone, on all sides, wanted to achieve.
I am not aware of any request for naval assets. The Indian armed forces are large and efficient. A large number of them are in theatre. They have not requested our armed forces. I will find out whether we have ships in the vicinity—if we did, I suspect that I would know. The Indian Government are controlling the emergency; they are appealing for certain kinds of help—for example, there are many military bodies, but they do not have search and rescue or listening equipment. We are complementing their capacity to bring many people into play. I will check on that matter.

Points of Order

Mrs. Theresa May: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I gave you notice that, on 18 January, during the Opposition day debate on teacher supply and standards in education, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment moved a motion in the Prime Minister's name stating:
there are more people training to be teachers now than at any time in the last eight years."—[Official Report, 18 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 537.]
Yet in a written reply from the Minister for School Standards to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 24 January, figures supplied by the Department for Education and Employment showed that in four of the past eight years, more people were training to be teachers than currently. The statement made in the Prime Minister's motion was thus wrong, Mr. Speaker, so I seek your guidance as to how we may ensure that the true position is put before the House, that that statement is corrected and that Members of the House are not misled by misinformation from Ministers.

Mr. Speaker: I believe that the hon. Lady is referring to an amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. During the debate, it was open to the hon. Lady, or any other hon. Member, to put the record straight as to the accuracy of the amendment.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that, last Friday, the Home Secretary responded to several questions, including one that I asked on the date and time of a telephone conversation between the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien). The Home Secretary confirmed that he was not prepared
to pre-empt the outcome of a review".—[Official Report, 25 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 709W.]
That review is being conducted by Sir Anthony Hammond. Will you confirm that, on the rules for reference in debate to matters awaiting judicial decision, "Erskine May" states that such a restriction
does not apply to ad hoc inquiries established by Ministers even when presided over by a judge, nor does it apply to matters referred to a departmental inquiry."?
Will you therefore confirm that there is no constraint whatever on Ministers on how they might reply to debates or parliamentary questions on the Hinduja passport application? In addition, is it in order for the Home Secretary to refuse to answer questions relating to the matter in the House on Friday, but on Sunday to answer questions relating to such conversations asked by Mr. Jonathan Dimbleby?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice of that point of order. I have already made it clear that the inquiry set up by the Prime Minister does not render the matter sub judice. I have also made it clear that the substance of ministerial replies is not my responsibility. The hon. Gentleman will have to find other ways in which to raise his concerns.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not giving

you notice, but my point of order relates to the previous matter. In 1996, the House passed a motion describing the accountability of Ministers to the House. It now appears on page 63 of "Erskine May", which states:
ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with relevant statute, and the government's Code of Practice on Access to Government Information".
I have a copy of the code of practice on access to information, and it does indeed lay down certain conditions for confidentiality, but none relating to an inquiry set up by the Government.
Mr. Speaker, you are the guardian of our rights in this respect. Only you can make the Government comply with a motion, passed by the House in 1996, that does not give them the right to use their own inquiry as an excuse to block the scrutiny powers of hon. Members. I therefore appeal to you to enforce the letter of that motion, which we passed only a few years ago.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On that very matter—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me answer that very matter.
I have ruled that the matter is not sub judice. It is up to hon. Members to keep persevering and asking questions of Ministers.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am not allowed to say that those points of order were bogus, because that is your function, Mr. Speaker, and I cannot challenge what you wish to say. However, they were bogus. Perhaps hon. Members should recall what happened during 17 years of Tory Government, when Ministers repeatedly told us from the Dispatch Box that they could not answer parliamentary questions. Indeed, I was repeatedly blocked in the Table Office on the basis that ministerial inquiries were under way, following instructions from those in the private office, who spoke to the Clerks in the Table Office. Those points of order are totally spurious and totally bogus, and we will not be fooled.

Mr. Speaker: I am always reluctant to say that an hon. Member has raised—[Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman asked me a question, but he is continuing to talk. I am always reluctant to say that hon. Members have raised bogus points of order, but what we heard from the hon. Gentleman was, indeed, a bogus point of order.

Mr. John Bercow: My point of order is, as always, entirely genuine, Mr. Speaker. Given the growing concern about the unlawful activities of many animal rights protesters in this country, have you received any indication that a Home Office Minister wishes shortly to make a statement about the new and additional means by which the Government intend that people who are suspected of harassment, intimidation or violence can be identified and prosecuted without delay?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should wait for the debate.

Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not giving you advance


notice of my point, but it relates to the points of order on the Hammond inquiry. It is becoming daily more clear that the reason for the resignation of the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was the insistence of a civil servant—the Prime Minister's chief press spokesman—that he must resign. if the Hammond inquiry finds that that is so, what recourse will Members have to hold an unelected civil servant to account when issues of such gravity as the resignation of a Cabinet Minister are precipitated by that civil servant?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman puts a hypothetical question to me, and I am not in the business of answering hypothetical questions.

Orders of the Day — Criminal Justice and Police Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that, from 7 pm to 9.30 pm, there will be a time limit on Back-Bench speeches.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill has a simple aim: it is to aid the police and the courts in further reducing crime and the fear of crime. Crime is still too high, but we have sought to make considerable progress in reducing it. Last October's British crime survey showed that crime had fallen by 10 per cent. between 1997 and 1999, and it is worth bearing it in mind that that survey seeks to measure all crime committed against property belonging to individuals or against the person. It included a recording of a 4 per cent. reduction in violent crime overall. As we know from the recorded crime figures that were issued recently, recorded crime dropped by 7 per cent. between March 1997 and September 2000. Burglary and vehicle crime are now at their lowest levels for a decade.
No one is remotely complacent about overall levels of crime and disorder, not least against the background of the fact that crime doubled during the 1980s and early 1990s. Along with that, the proportion of people convicted of crimes fell by a third.

Mr. John Major: I think that everyone is pleased to hear about the reductions in crime from 1997, but they may be equally interested to hear about the reductions in crime from 1992 onwards. They were also substantial, but, in a curious way, the figures on that have slipped out of the Home Secretary's brief for this debate.

Mr. Straw: As I recall it, the reduction in recorded crime began in 1993 and not in 1992, but I am willing to concede that point. Interestingly enough, the reduction in crime as measured by the British crime survey, which measures overall levels of crime, did not start until 1995. If the right hon. Gentleman wants, I would be very happy to trade statistics with him about what happened during his period of office and what has happened under my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Let us take the first three and a half years of each of the last Administrations. During the first three and a half years of the Thatcher Administration, recorded crime rose by 20 per cent.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Those figures were inherited.

Mr. Straw: Certainly the inheritance of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was a terrible one.
During the first three and a half years of the Major Administration, crime rose by getting on for 40 per cent., whereas during the first three and a half years of my right


hon. Friend's Administration, crime fell by 7 per cent. That is the best record of any incoming Administration for 50 years.

Mr. Major: I do not want remotely to make the Home Secretary unhappy, but he will concede that the trend had begun and continued. It is precisely because of the basis that the right hon. Gentleman inherited that he saw that continuing trend. After some years of the present Administration, crime does not seem to be falling at the same rate.

Mr. Straw: According to the most accurate measure—the British crime survey—the trend did not start until 1995. Indeed, the same statisticians who put those figures together warned me when I took office that all the demographic and economic factors were suggesting that crime would start to rise. I am pleased to say that it has not done so.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: rose—

Mr. Straw: I know of the right hon. Lady's anxiety to start ranting, but will she hang on for one second? Despite the fall that occurred in the last two years of the Major Administration, all the evidence which has been published was that crime was likely to rise if we did not do something about it. I am pleased to say that we have done something about it.

Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the following facts: over the last four years of the previous Conservative Administration, recorded crime fell by 16 per cent., and on the same measurement, the latest fall in crime is only 0.2 per cent? Could he listen? Since he is so fond of the British crime survey, will he please confirm that the fall measured by the most recent survey is less than that measured by the previous survey? Whereas we left steeper falls, he has presided over at best a slowing up and at worst a reverse.

Mr. Straw: I will move on to the contents of the Bill, although I accept my responsibility for putting it in context.

Miss Widdecombe: Answer the question.

Mr. Straw: I am answering the question. The right hon. Lady asks a question, usually at great length, and before one has the chance even to take a breath, she always twitters, "Answer the question." She sometimes may not like the answers, but I always do my best to answer the questions put to me—especially if I can follow them.

Mr. John Bercow: The Home Secretary is playing for time.

Mr. Straw: I am not playing for time in the least.
The figures are clear; I just gave them to the right hon. Member for Huntingdon. They show that, from about 1993, recorded crime fell. Crime was measured by the

BCS from 1995. As we are talking about the records of Governments, it must be said that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was a member of a Government who left two indelible marks. Even allowing for a tail-end fall, crime doubled under the previous Administration and the number of people convicted of those crimes fell by a third. That is why such public confidence in the Conservatives' efforts to make this country safe as existed in 1979 will not be restored for a very long time and why the public continue to have confidence in us.
We are about a major programme of reform and investment in the criminal justice system in order to ensure that the progress that we have made—as I say, crime is still far too high—continues at a greater pace.
We are investing 20 per cent. in cash terms over the next three years—a real increase of 12 per cent.—in policing. It will be the greatest increase for 15 years. However, with that investment, we need reform. The goal behind the Bill is to strengthen and to modernise law enforcement. The Bill contains a wide range of measures that will provide the police and others in the criminal justice system with improved powers to enable them better to enforce the law and to protect the public.
Part I deals with one of the most unpleasant aspects of modern life—the antisocial behaviour of a yobbish minority, which can all too often impinge on the quality of life of the law-abiding majority.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make a little more progress.
The Bill gives the police new powers to issue penalty notices for a number of offences which are antisocial and which in some cases make life decidedly unpleasant for others. These offences, which are set out in the Bill, include being drunk and disorderly, and wasting the emergency services' time by making fraudulent 999 calls. Part I also targets the misuse of alcohol, especially by young people, in our society. The Bill includes a series of measures that will make it easier for local authorities to ban drinking in designated areas where it causes public nuisance or annoyance. These measures will give the police the necessary enforcement powers.
There are examples of innovative local authorities—not least Coventry and Liverpool—that have made use of existing byelaw powers to ban on-street drinking. However, as I discovered when I received representations about 18 months ago from an individual police officer who is responsible for drafting byelaws, the current process for obtaining clearance is rather convoluted.
We have therefore sought to establish a clear framework of powers that devolves decisions to local authorities. They will not have to go backwards and forwards to the Home Office to check whether the drafting is in order. If they wish in this context to designate an area within their town or city centre and to make use of on-street alcohol bans, they will be able to do so without going through the bureaucracy of coming back to the Home Office. I think that that will be widely welcomed.

Mr. Baldry: What is the point of the Government's bringing forward fresh legislation to deal with antisocial


behaviour when their last flagship Bill providing for antisocial behaviour orders led to legislation that is not working? Should not the long title of this Bill read, "We are approaching a general election and we should be seen to be doing something about crime"?

Mr. Straw: That is an absurd remark. The use of antisocial behaviour orders is working in my constituency, as it is in Hyndburn and Preston. More than 150 orders have been issued in large cities and in smaller shire districts. The hon. Gentleman asked a more serious question when we last debated ASBOs. Some local authorities said, "We cannot use them because they involve the criminal process." The Lord Chief Justice—I took the trouble to write to the hon. Gentleman about the decision—has made it clear in an important judgment of the divisional court that the process for obtaining antisocial behaviour orders is, as Parliament intended, a civil process, and one which is there to be used.

Mr. Alun Michael: At a conference that I chaired and at which my hon. Friend the Minister of State spoke the other week, the enthusiasm of people within the system—the police, local authorities and others—for getting on with the job and using the tools provided in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was palpable. People were keen to understand why antisocial behaviour orders had not been sufficiently used, and recognised that they now need to be used properly.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention and for the work that he did in ensuring that the 1998 Act reached the statute book.
Other measures—

Mr. Humfrey Malins: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make progress, as many hon. Members wish to speak. There will be other opportunities later in the debate and in Committee.
Other powers will permit the police immediately to close disorderly or excessively noisy pubs and clubs, and to prevent unlicensed premises from reopening following police action to arrest offenders.
There are new provisions to deal with under-age drinking, which require those selling alcohol to check the age of young people who may be, or appear to be, under 18. The police and local authorities will also be permitted to use young people to test-purchase to check that the law is being obeyed.

Mr. Paul Burstow: I want to ask the Home Secretary about test purchases. Many of my constituents feel that under-age drinking is fuelling much of the yob behaviour in my constituency. Just how soon will the police and trading standards officers have those new powers to authorise test purchases?

Mr. Straw: As soon as the Bill goes on the statute book, which I very much hope will be within a matter of months. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is little doubt in my mind that much—although not all—of the serious antisocial behaviour that takes place in our

town and city centres, and in many residential areas as well, is almost literally fuelled by serious under-age drinking. I am sure that I speak for the whole House—except those brought up in teetotal families, of which mine was not one—in saying that, to a degree, under-age drinking has been around as long as the licensing laws, but the problem has got very much worse in terms of the quantity of drink, and particularly the quantity of spirits, drunk by youngsters these days. The way in which plainly under-age youngsters are being targeted by the alcohol industry is a growing problem.

Mr. Malins: rose—

Mr. Straw: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to make progress?

Mr. Malins: The right hon. Gentleman never gives way to me.

Mr. Straw: That is simply not true, but if the hon. Gentleman carries on saying that, I shall certainly not give way to him. I promise to give way to him in a moment.
Measures aimed at ensuring responsible behaviour by those selling alcohol will extend to all those working in pubs, rather than simply the licensee. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins).

Mr. Malins: I am most grateful to the Home Secretary, and take back everything that I said about him: he is very generous.
Most of the offences in the preamble to the Bill tend to be committed by under-18s. The real problem is with under-18s behaving in that way, wasting police time with phone calls and so on. But am I not right in thinking that the Bill does not apply to under-18s; that the penalties are only for over-18s; and that a great section of our youngsters are excluded from its provisions?

Mr. Straw: At the moment—

Mr. Malins: At the moment.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman has caught an infection from his right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald. He asks a question, wants an explanation and then offers me the answer before I have got it out. As drafted, the Bill's provisions on fixed-penalty notices—not other matters—apply to those who are over 18. We are happy to hear opinions from hon. Members on both sides of the House on that matter.
A balanced judgment was taken as to whether we should have fixed-penalty notices for 16 and l7-year-olds. However, the reforms to the youth justice system introduced under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 are already on the statute book and working well, as I can testify. Until now, the opinion that we have received is that, on balance—I am not suggesting that this is a unanimous view—it is better to stick with those provisions, which are working well, rather than extend fixed-penalty notices down. However, I am open to argument and am happy to listen to the views of the hon. Member for Woking.
We have already heard about the Crime and Disorder Act, which established a wide range of measures and reforms primarily for dealing with low-level criminality, including ASBOs. Those orders are intended for use against those who are severely disruptive to their communities, and who do not heed repeated warnings unless they are backed by the threat of criminal charges. As I said, ASBOs have been very successful, with 150 granted already and many more applications in the pipeline. Conservative Members who disagree should look at the areas in which ASBOs have been successful. I should be interested to learn whether at the election—whenever that takes place—they will abolish that key tool, which helps to deal with a matter that they never dealt with in power.
By definition, those targeted by ASBOs will also be likely to resort to intimidation if there is a prospect of members of the public giving evidence against them in court proceedings or providing information for use in those proceedings. The Bill therefore extends to witnesses in other court proceedings, such as civil proceedings, the existing protection afforded by statute law to witnesses in criminal proceedings. It will make it a criminal offence to intimidate those giving evidence in civil proceedings, including a hearing on an ASBO.
As I have explained, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 set in motion radical reform of the youth justice system, featuring youth offending teams and a series of new orders that have been rolled out over the past two years. These measures are working extremely well overall: to date, some 7,814 orders under the Crime and Disorder Act and directly in respect of juveniles have been issued. That includes more than 200 parenting orders, about which there was scepticism when they were introduced, but which have worked well.
In addition to those orders, which have been successful, the 1998 Act introduced local child curfew schemes. At the time when that Act was debated, there was a view that those schemes would be more effective if extended to those under the age of 16, instead of to those under the age of 10, as the Act provides. Clause 43 of the Bill does just that, allowing curfews to be imposed on children up to the age of 15. It also enables police, as well as local authorities, to impose curfew schemes. We believe that these changes will increase the flexibility and use of curfew schemes, thereby helping to curb antisocial behaviour by children and young people.
A similar scheme in Scotland, the Hamilton child safety initiative in respect of children up to the age of 16, has operated successfully. Under the scheme, the police removed children from the "street environment" in what were perceived to be potentially harmful situations. Following the introduction of the scheme, 87 per cent. of parents of children returned home by police approved of the initiative. Crime and disorder complaints fell by 23 per cent. and crime associated with juveniles, including theft and vandalism, fell by 49 per cent. We have studied the experience in Hamilton to see how the scheme for England and Wales can be improved.
In the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 we took powers in respect of truants, and proposed a similar, although not the same, power for what have come to be called truancy sweeps, allowing the police and the local education

service to pick up kids who have been truanting and take them back to school or other appropriate accommodation. Again, there was scepticism when we proposed the powers, but they have been used in many parts of the country, including my constituency, and have proved extremely effective, both in getting kids back to school and in ensuring that fewer of those kids commit crime when they should be at school.
The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), and I have received many representations urging us to make two serious acts of criminality—kerb crawling and hit and run—arrestable offences. Kerb crawling is a crime already. The practice of kerb crawling can seriously disrupt and disfigure communities, but the police lack the power to arrest offenders and therefore lack the power to take DNA samples from them. In respect of hit-and-run drivers, the police do not have a general power to arrest them, which can often lead to drivers who have committed quite serious offences fleeing successfully from the scene of crime and not being susceptible to immediate apprehension.

Ms Rosie Winterton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. The inclusion of the measure to make kerb crawling an arrestable offence has been warmly welcomed by the police and by local residents in my constituency. Both groups have said that it is an excellent example of the Government responding to the needs of people in an area where kerb crawling is a big problem. The only concern that has been raised relates to the strength of the penalties, particularly for persistent kerb crawlers. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the range of penalties that will be available to the courts?

Mr. Straw: I am glad to hear that the change has been welcomed by my hon. Friend's constituents. On penalties, I do not have the answer immediately to hand, but I am happy to examine the adequacy of the penalties.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I wanted to catch the Home Secretary before he left the subject of child curfews and other general responses. Given that, by my calculation, we had 19 crime or police Bills during 18 years of Tory rule, and this is the seventh such Bill under almost four years of Labour rule, I do not take the simplistic view of the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) that a bit of legislation suddenly produces a reduction in crime. The situation is much more complex than that.
Fixed-penalty notices, child curfews and the proposals for extending the right to hold DNA samples are extremely controversial, and arguably not likely to be effective. Instead of setting out countrywide powers, as the Bill proposes, would it not have been better for the Government to pilot some of the proposals to see whether they work, and to present Parliament with measures that are not just ideas that sound good but ideas that might do good?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman raised three different issues. First, curfews do not need to be piloted because it is for individual local authorities to decide whether to use them. They are based on a discretionary power, so one would have assumed that they would appeal to the


Liberals. We thought about piloting curfews—my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) will remember this—but we decided that it is almost logically impossible to pilot a scheme that depends on a local initiative.
Secondly, there is an argument for the piloting of fixed-penalty notices. After undertaking a consultation process, we came down on one side of that argument and decided not to introduce such pilots. However, we are not saying that the arguments favour only one view: we remain open minded.
Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman mentioned DNA. When suspects' rights are being dealt with, a single system must apply throughout the country. I do not see any basis for pilots. It would be different if the technology was not quite right, but it clearly works no matter where it is used.
The provisions that I have outlined so far deal primarily with relatively low-level crime. None the less, they deal with activities that can disfigure communities. Such behaviour can be profoundly disruptive and distressing and can lead to more serious offending if it is not checked.
The Bill's other provisions are aimed at more serious and organised crime. For example, it gives the courts power to confiscate the passports of convicted drug traffickers, which will restrict them from travelling overseas to continue their illegal trade after they have been released from custody—if such was the sentence that they received.
Part VII contains an important provision on the granting of bail. Like other hon. Members, I have received many representations from police officers who are concerned about bail. Sometimes, they have spent weeks bringing prolific offenders to court only for them to be granted bail and return to the streets to reoffend. It is not only magistrates' right, but their duty, to grant bail where they think it appropriate. Equally, however, it is their duty not to do so where all the evidence favours a remand in custody. The Bill seeks to encourage a responsible approach to the granting of bail by amending the Bail Act 1976 to require courts to give reasons for granting bail where the prosecutor makes representations against doing so.
Parts II and III include measures to strengthen the powers of law enforcement agencies. Part II deals with the disclosure of confidential information for the purposes of criminal investigations and procedures. It tidies up disclosure provisions in the 74 measures set out in schedule 1, which are diverse enough to include the National Savings Bank Act 1971 and the Diseases of Fish Act 1983. Part II also provides a statutory power for the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise to disclose information to other law enforcement agencies. That will allow a reciprocal flow of information between those bodies, the police and the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
Part III will further bolster the powers of law enforcement agencies by modernising powers of seizure. The Bill gives the police and other law enforcement agencies powers to seize material and remove it for sifting elsewhere. The new measures address two separate issues. They deal with the problems identified in the Bramley judgment, which brought into focus the difficulties faced by the police and other investigators when the material that they are entitled to seize is mixed with a collection of material to which that entitlement does not apply.

Sometimes, those investigating a crime may not know to which part their entitlement applies, especially when the material is stored electronically. In the Bramley judgment, the divisional court recognised the defect in the law, but said that it could be overcome only by making changes in primary legislation. The Bill removes those difficulties by giving police and other law enforcement agencies power to remove material from premises for examination where constraints of time or technology make it not reasonably possible to carry out the process on the premises.
In part IV, significant changes are made to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. One of the most important types of evidence used by the police in a wide range of criminal cases today comes from DNA samples. We have extended, in practice, this scope and use of DNA by substantial investment in the forensic science service and in the availability of scenes-of-crime officers. The police, in turn, are using DNA testing not only for very serious crimes but as a way of identifying prolific offenders such as burglars and car criminals.
In almost every criminal case, the first and overwhelming question before the police and the courts is the identity of the person who committed the offence. Who was it? Before the turn of the last century, when the first fingerprint standard was agreed by New Scotland Yard, identity could be established only through the testimony of witnesses or through the accused's confession. Over the past 100 years, science and technology has come to the aid of justice, moving in fingerprinting from visual comparisons of images on paper to digital capture and searching, with the ability to make more than 1 million fingerprint comparisons every second. However, the use of DNA profiling—first developed in 1985 and, happily, in this country—offered the most important forensic advance of the late 20th century.
DNA profiling is a very powerful tool—an objective form of evidence. Its values lies as much, if not more, in its ability to exclude the innocent as in its ability to convict the guilty. When the police investigate a case, if they do not proceed with a prosecution or the suspect is acquitted, they routinely retain all the records of the investigation, including the notes of interviews with suspects and other interviews. That has always been the case. The police would not dream of throwing away their memory on the offchance that the offender may or may not commit a further offence. Yet the law requires that the most objective and powerful forms of evidence—fingerprints and DNA—have to be destroyed if a conviction does not follow from the taking of the sample in question.
This has already led to serious miscarriages of justice. In two recent cases, R v. B and R v. Weir, compelling DNA evidence that linked one suspect to a rape and the other to a murder could not be used, and neither suspect could be convicted, because it turned out that at the time when the matches were made, the defendants had either been acquitted of another crime, or a decision had been made not to proceed with the offences for which the DNA profiles were originally taken. Under the existing provisions, the profiles should have been destroyed.
Those who believe that we should leave the law as it is, following the decision of the Law Lords in the case of R v. B, should, I suggest, look at the narrative of Lord Steyn in that case. Their lordships sought to bring the law as near as possible to common sense without actually


murdering the text of the statute, but they could not go the whole way. Lord Steyn pointed out that there were added injustices in the R v. B case. First, it was unjust to the victim and the community that compelling evidence against this man could not be used to convict him when everyone knew it existed. Secondly, the man was able to escape that conviction altogether only because of another trick—another offence—that he had played on the police. It turned out subsequently that, at the time of his arrest on this charge, he had already been convicted of affray. Had the DNA technology been available and in use when he was arrested on that affray charge and subsequently convicted, it would have been perfectly lawful to take a DNA sample from him and for that to remain on the record for ever. However, the sample was not taken.
As the law stands, to deal with such situations, when someone is convicted of an offence and a sample that could have been taken is not taken and he is arrested in respect of another offence, the police have powers to take a sample at that stage and retain it for ever. That should have happened in this case. If it had, there would subsequently have been a conviction for rape. However, the police did not know—and could not have known—of the original conviction because the defendant gave a false name, which put them off the trail for some time.
I accept that the use of DNA and fingerprinting must be carefully controlled, precisely because they are powerful tools. However, anyone who has visited a forensic service science laboratory, as I have, and seen the huge care that is taken, will know that it is virtually impossible for any scientist to know whether a sample is to be used to identify a suspect or a victim, and will appreciate the substantial safeguards that are in place. Furthermore, an important role is played by defence counsel in challenging the integrity of the lifting of samples at a scene of crime—by definition, a less controlled environment—and such issues sometimes have to be challenged by the courts.
Taking all those arguments together, I believe that the current state of the law is wholly unsatisfactory. We cannot continue to have cases such as that in which a man commits an act of violence—an affray—then a burglary, and then—as compelling evidence suggests—a rape. Such people cannot be allowed to continue to play games with the technicalities of the law, while rape victims go in fear of further crimes being committed by the person against whom compelling evidence exists to show that they committed a rape. The other case in question was a murder case—the most serious crime in the criminal calendar.
I say to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the Bill is far from controversial. I notice that the briefing submitted by Liberty is very sotto voce and without a great deal of conviction on the issue. The public are ready for this change, as are the police and the victims' organisations.
We propose that, when a DNA sample is taken lawfully from a suspect—not under conditions of false imprisonment—it should remain available to the police, whatever happens at a later date in terms of a conviction or otherwise. We also propose separate changes in respect of the volunteering of DNA samples. The Law Society's briefing on this proposal was rather muddled. In many cases—in which innocent people have been eliminated

from inquiries and guilty people identified—the police have gone to all the men in a village and asked them to volunteer a DNA sample. At present, the police have to destroy those samples even if the volunteers say, "For God's sake, please keep the sample. I have nothing to fear."
In one such case, the present law caused immense problems. A serial rapist was operating and the police could not catch him as a result of their first investigation, so they had to destroy all the samples that they had collected. The man struck again, and the police had to go back to the volunteers to obtain further samples. They did not catch him that time either, so those samples also had to be destroyed, and further ones subsequently collected. In my judgment, and that of the police, that is ridiculous. Yes, the volunteers should have an absolute right to say, "You can use this sample only for this inquiry. You must destroy it afterwards." That should be the end of the matter. However, if the volunteers want to say, "Keep it," as I think most of them would, the law should allow that to happen, as we propose.

Mr. Simon Thomas: rose—

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Straw: I have already given way, and I want to make progress.
I have not yet dealt with one important aspect of the Bill, which is the issue of animal rights, which has caused considerable concern among right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I have already set out my views, but I shall briefly reiterate them. Peaceful protest is, of course, acceptable. However, seeking to disrupt, frighten and harass other individuals and their lawful businesses by the means that so-called animal rights people adopt is totally unacceptable in the kind of society that we want.
Some people have hesitations about this matter, so I want to place on record my personal thanks and admiration for the very difficult work undertaken by those who conduct research on animals. None of the people who conduct such research like doing it. They all wish that alternatives were available, and as soon as they are—and have attained an acceptable standard—those people will be the first to move away from those procedures and to start using procedures that do not involve animals.
The experiments are conducted in this country under legislation passed by the previous Administration, with which we have continued, in a regime that is tougher than any other in the western world that I know of. The consequences of being able to conduct such research are that a range of drugs and other procedures are now available that have ensured that many of us—including, I might say, myself—are able to lead a decent life, and that many people's lives have been extended. Many would simply have died were such drug therapy not available—no doubt many of those who masquerade as animal rights protesters among them.
Protecting such research is not an incidental, but of profound importance. For that reason, thanks to representations from the right hon. Members for Huntingdon and for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), I quickly agreed that


Cambridgeshire constabulary, which is a small force, should receive an extra £1 million for this year to recognise the additional, and what all of us believe to be otherwise unnecessary, costs of having to police those terrible protests.
Furthermore, I told the House that we would conduct urgent consultations about changing the law. Those changes are not in the Bill for reasons that the House will understand. We are urgently consulting on two matters. One is a change to section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, which would make it an offence for people—even an individual—to protest outside people's houses. I have been on loads of protests, but I have never considered that any part of peaceful protest requires people to protest outside other people's private houses. When I was on demonstrations, we wanted to protest in the main street. Protesting outside people's houses is an outrageous piece of harassment. We have to deal with that.
The second change is to make the test in the malicious communications offences objective, not one that essentially allows people who send malicious communications to escape because the defence is subjective.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Straw: If I may, I shall give way to the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: I thank the Home Secretary: when he spoke about those who work in animal research institutions, he spoke for the whole House. I also thank him for redeeming the promise to introduce legislation, which will be extremely important to constituents of mine and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) whose properties have been fire-bombed. They have been harassed and intimidated in a quite disgraceful way. Will the Home Secretary be kind enough to make every effort to introduce the proposals in Committee so that they can be considered in depth rather than on Report, when there will be less opportunity?

Mr. Straw: The answer is, yes, I promise to do my best to do so, although the right hon. Gentleman is perhaps more familiar with the legislative process than I, and we are already consulting. We are very open about the consultation and want it to continue.
I do not happen to know people in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency or that of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon who have been involved, but I do happen to know those who were involved in similar animal experimentation in Oxfordshire. The distress caused to decent, law-abiding people is just unbelievable. Most Members of the House are willing to put up with a bit of protest against them. Certainly those in posts such as mine know that that is par for the course, but it is not par for the course for decent people who are not in public life and just want to go about their business.

Mr. Major: I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to speak about this matter at greater length, but it might be appropriate to put on record my unambiguous thanks to the Home Secretary for obtaining the money from the Treasury, which is not lightly done. No Chief Secretary lightly coughs up money; if he does so, he should not be Chief Secretary.
I also thank the Home Secretary for his willingness to accept representations about changing the law and to introduce such changes. I have more representations to make to him—some this afternoon, some later—but I say on behalf of my constituents that that willingness has been well received. The right hon. Gentleman has been supportive of the work that goes on both in helping to meet the extra policing costs caused by the demonstrations and in his determination to change the law—through the Bill, I hope.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend—I mean the right hon. Gentleman. He is a personal friend, but that is another matter.
I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: May I say how warmly my right hon. Friend's remarks will be welcomed in my constituency? My constituents include not only people who work at Huntingdon Life Sciences, but many scientists who work with animals on medical research. During the last week I have received more than 50 letters and e-mails from scientists, some of whom have been so intimidated and harassed that they have been afraid to put their addresses on the letters. I am very pleased about my right hon. Friend's determination to tackle this difficult situation.

Mr. Straw: This is easy enough to say, but I hope that those people will withstand the intimidation as best they can.

Mr. Phil Willis: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: I hope the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I do not. I have been speaking for more than 40 minutes, and I want to finish my speech.
The Bill provides for a number of improvements in the training organisation of the police service, and includes other important measures. It draws together proposals to modernise a wide range of powers for the police, the courts and other law enforcement agencies. It also seeks to make changes relating to the funding and organisation of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad. Overall, it seeks to enable those services to perform more effectively, and to tackle criminal behaviour better in the 21st century.
I believe that the Bill will substantially improve the tools available to those in the front line of the battle against crime and disorder, and I commend it to the House.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: Let me make it clear—as my predecessors and I have done on other occasions during this Parliament—that, unlike the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary when they were in opposition, we always seek to give a fair wind to law and order measures if they are sensible. Although we have some reservations about parts of the Bill, therefore, we shall not divide the House at this stage. That does not mean, however, that we are content with the detail of all the measures proposed.
Last March, on Second Reading of the Bill that became the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, the Home Secretary himself stated:
As I have said before, no Bill that I have taken through the House has been perfect in all its particulars."—[Official Report, 28 March 2000; Vol. 347, c. 227.]
Indeed, had it not been for the Opposition's attention to detail, that Bill would have gone through Parliament without the important amendments that were made to it—amendments that, for instance, introduced tougher sentences for child pornography offences, and made those who deal drugs to children subject to disqualification from working with them. Those are just two examples of the numerous Opposition amendments that the Government eventually accepted. I hope that the Home Secretary will view all the amendments tabled by the Opposition to this Bill in the constructive spirit in which they will be proposed, because the Bill is by no means perfect as it stands.

Mr. Straw: Never perfect.

Mr. Edward Garnier: That should be the title of his autobiography.

Miss Widdecombe: It has been suggested that that might be the title of the Home Secretary's autobiography. I would not normally repeat sedentary interventions, but I could not resist that one.
We have three main areas of concern. The first relates to what the Bill does not do. That is especially important, because this will certainly be our last opportunity to enact criminal justice legislation in the current Parliament.
The Bill is devoid of measures to tackle the wave of violent crime that is sweeping the country under this Government. It contains little to improve the rights and position of victims in the criminal justice system. [Interruption.] Labour Members think violent crime is funny: perhaps their constituents will note that.
The Bill contains nothing to improve the morale of the police, which is at rock bottom. The Home Secretary—no doubt at the Prime Minister's request—has included what he describes as headline-grabbing measures, but the approach, mirroring that of the Prime Minister, is more spin than substance.
We know from recent events that Ministers cannot remember everything, but the Home Secretary clearly takes pride in his own powers of recall. He will therefore doubtless remember his flagship consultation on the reform of the law against violent crime, a document issued as long ago as February 1998. The Home Secretary cannot claim to have undersold those proposals, describing them at the time as
the Government's proposals for reforming out-moded and unclear Victorian legislation.
I used the word "flagship" because that is the word that the Home Secretary himself used in his foreword to the consultation paper. Indeed, he was so keen to associate himself with those proposals that they were presented next to a photograph of him, with his own signature at the bottom.
The introduction to the document stated that the law in this sphere was
in urgent need of reform";
and that:
It is … particularly important that the law governing such behaviour should be robust, clear and well understood … That is what the draft Bill contained in this consultation paper does. It is intended to help not only practitioners of the law but anyone who finds themselves involved in court cases, whether as a defendant, victim or witness.
Given the importance attached to those proposals three years ago, the fact that consultation on them closed in May 1998 and the fact that a draft Bill emerged during the consultation, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what has happened to them? He himself has said that offences of violence are
the offences that most worry people".
At a time when violent crime is soaring—to the amusement of Labour Members—and the Government have themselves said that they have measures available to strengthen the law in this area, it does seem odd that, instead of those proposals on violent crime, we end up with a rather pick-and-mix Bill of which the centrepieces are the proposals from the right hon. Gentleman to salvage his failed child curfew schemes and the Prime Minister's now infamous £100 cashpoint fines for drunks.
That brings me to the first major issue in the Bill—fixed-penalty notices, which are there to spare the Prime Minister's blushes after the disastrous reception that his £100 cashpoint fines idea received in July 2000. The House will know that I am not opposed in principle to fixed-penalty notices—

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady has paid one herself.

Miss Widdecombe: Yes—unlike the right hon. Gentleman, who gets others to do his speeding for him.
We shall want detailed consideration in Committee of the way in which it is proposed that those fines will operate. In particular—this is our second major concern about the Bill—we must ensure that the system does not add to the bureaucratic burdens on police, and also that it is properly targeted.
Clause 8 appears to require the constable issuing a fixed-penalty notice to take the offender to a police station and provide a full witness statement with that notice, which will obviously have implications for police time. In that respect at least, the proposals are not similar to tickets for minor parking or speeding offences. I know that the Police Superintendents Association and the Police Federation have concerns about that particular point. The Justices' Clerks Society has also highlighted difficulties, not least with identification and the giving of false details to police.
Those are some of the procedural issues that have been raised already about the Bill's contents. How is a police officer going to know whether someone to whom he has given a fixed-penalty notice has had perhaps 10 or a dozen notices issued for the same offence in other parts of the country? Will there be a central record of such notices? What recourse will victims of criminal damage have if offenders are given fixed-penalty notices rather than being prosecuted? Will they still be able to obtain compensation through the courts?
The fixed-penalty provisions will now apply only to adults rather than to the over-16s, as originally envisaged. I note that the Home Office consultation paper said:
A significant amount of disorderly behaviour in public places is committed by people under the age of 18.
I am therefore somewhat surprised that the Government have targeted their fixed-penalty fines—which will apply only to over- 18s—at offences such as hoax 999 calls, trespassing on the railway, throwing stones at trains and spray-painting graffiti, when it is certainly the general impression that most of those offences are committed by juveniles rather than by adults.
As far as the proposals for alcohol-free zones are concerned, they appear, at first glance, to be little more than an extension of what is available to councils at the moment in the terms of byelaws. I would be grateful for clarification on that point. What is new about this? What is the power that is not already available to councils? We have concerns about the proposed procedures for imposing those bans, which are not specified in the Bill. Would an elected mayor, an individual executive member or even a council official with delegated authority be able to impose such a ban, perhaps by using the "behind closed doors" provisions of the Government's legislation, which encourages more secrecy in local decision making? Surely decisions such as that are best left to an open and accountable forum.
Perhaps the most crucial element in deciding whether or not the measure is effective will be the number of police officers putting it into effect. Given that the chairman of the Police Federation says that there is
a sense of disorder and anarchy on our streets.
that police numbers have fallen by more than 2,500 under the Government, and that violent crime is rising so alarmingly, will the police have the manpower or the time to enforce these bans effectively, in addition to issuing fixed-penalty notices and enforcing child curfew orders, especially if local authorities begin making them in large numbers?

Maria Eagle: Does the right hon. Lady accept that the experience in my constituency is not that police officers are not present when disorder occurs, but that they do not have the relevant powers to deal with some of these issues? It is primarily not a matter of police numbers but of what officers can do when they come across problems.

Miss Widdecombe: I must disagree with the hon. Lady, although I appreciate what is behind her point. If the police are dealing with one thing, they cannot be dealing with others. I went out recently with police in central London on a Friday night patrol, and the issue was not that they did not have the powers. It was that there were simply so many things that they might have investigated that they had to prioritise because there were too few officers. If extra powers are given to the police, will they be used if there are not enough officers, or if any extra numbers are deploying their time not on the streets, but in bureaucracy at the station? That is a valid point.

Mr. Michael: Does the right hon. Lady acknowledge that the police spend a great deal of time re-dealing with the same issue time and time again because they are not able to nip things in the bud? That is why the targeted

powers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) has pointed out, strengthen the position of the police, rather than waste their resources.

Miss Widdecombe: Theoretically, giving the police extra powers is usually helpful; in fact, it is nearly always helpful. However, the issue is whether there are enough officers and whether they have the time to be able to use their powers effectively. A clear example is the child curfew power; there has not been a single such order in the 28 months that they have been available. Yes, extra activity may be available to the police, but will it be possible, given the numbers we have at the moment?

Mr. Michael: But does the right hon. Lady—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that the right hon. Lady has not yet given way to him.

Miss Widdecombe: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but he must take into account the fact that 10 out of 12 offences committed in this field are already arrestable.

Mr. Michael: Does the right hon. Lady acknowledge that many members of the public who approach police officers on these issues are told that there is nothing that the police can do because they do not have a power that they can use in practice? That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is right to introduce the power.

Miss Widdecombe: What the police say is that there are not enough of them to do the job. If 10 of the 12 offences are already arrestable, it cannot be that the police do not have powers of arrest. It is simply the case that there are not enough of them.
It would be helpful if the Government clarified how it is intended that the new police powers to close licensed premises are to work. The industry is concerned that the Home Office estimate of the annual cost of the proposals to business varies from £1.1 million to £60 million. The Home Secretary looks confused; his memory has failed him for once. He should look at his own regulatory impact assessment.

Mr. Heald: Page 68.

Miss Widdecombe: I thank my hon. Friend. I admit that I did not remember the precise page on which the figures are to be found.
That wide range of costs suggests that the Government have not yet worked out exactly how the powers are to be implemented in practice. The trade is also concerned that new duties are being imposed on licensees in relation to underage drinking, but no new offence of attempting to purchase alcohol when under 18 is being created. It is an offence to purchase it, but not to attempt to purchase it. Why have the Government chosen not to go down that route? There may be good reasons, but we need to hear them.
I wholly understand why test purchasing is desirable, but I hope that we can have an assurance that it will not be used unfairly, and that any child taking part in such an operation will be fairly easily identifiable as under 18.
Clause 43 contains the Home Secretary's latest desperate attempt to salvage his failed child curfews. He is in a hole and he just keeps digging. I remind the House of what was said on page 23 of the Labour party manifesto:
Child protection orders will deal with young children suffering neglect by parents because they are left out on their own far too late at night.
The Home Secretary himself said that the powers would
protect children under 10 from being drawn into crime
and
serve the dual purpose of protecting the community and young children.
In fact, as I have just said, in the 28 months since those powers came into force, not one order has been made; not one child, left out on its own far too late at night, has been rescued; not one community has been protected, contrary to the Home Secretary's promise.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) suggested three years ago upping the age limit, in Committee on the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the then Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), vigorously opposed it, yet now the Home Secretary himself is proposing it.
The problems that were identified three years ago with the orders applying to the under-10s, which have perhaps contributed to the failure of the policy to date, apply equally to the proposals in the Bill. How are the police to sort out, in a group of 15 and 16-year-olds, exactly who is 15 and who is 16? I am sure that the Home Secretary will admit that some 15-year-olds these days can look as if they are in their early 20s.
The Home Office has admitted that such a problem exists, as shown by the following quotation:
There is always a difficulty for the police in determining age … Simply raising the limit would not remove the problem, but would change its focus."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 12 May 1998; c. 297.]
Those are the words of the then Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. Perhaps the Home Secretary or the current Minister of State could address the problem that he so ably outlined.
As the Home Secretary's statement implies, the efficacy of the policy depends on the number of police officers available to enforce it. Labour's most senior councillor, the chairman of the Local Government Association, Sir Jeremy Beecham, in an article entitled "Yob Crackdown Doomed to Fail: New Curfew Plans based on powers never used in the North", published in the Newcastle Journal last month, said:
The move … is unlikely to be used … curfews are not the most important thing that could be done.
Perhaps the final word should go to the Prime Minister, who described these powers, when first proposed in. 1996 by the now Home Secretary, as "eminently sensible"—another eloquent comment on his judgment.
I acknowledge that clauses 80 and 81, relating to DNA and fingerprints, provide that those who give their samples voluntarily—for example, in a mass screening exercise in high-profile murder cases, as the Home Secretary said, or in cases involving serious sex offences

or offences against children—will have to provide consent in writing for the retention and further use of those samples.
I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to assure us once more that the clauses genuinely provide for informed consent, and that those who are tested will be told when they make their decision the exact way in which their samples will be used. That is especially important when dealing with those who may be vulnerable or lacking in mental capacity. Such people are screened in mass screenings.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady makes an important point, and I am happy to give the assurance that she seeks. The use of the powers depends on people coming forward voluntarily, and it is therefore important to maintain public confidence in the system. That must include giving clear information about people's rights when they initially volunteer.

Miss Widdecombe: We shall test that in Committee, but I am grateful for that assurance in principle. Before the Home Secretary intervened, I said that such an assurance was especially important when dealing with those who may be vulnerable or lacking in mental capacity. I hope that the provisions will not be drafted in such a way as to discourage people from coming forward voluntarily to take part in large-scale testing or to eliminate themselves from inquiries.
There is anxiety about the civil liberties implications of the proposal in clause 81 to allow the police to retain DNA samples without consent, even when a person has been found not guilty or when a prosecution has not taken place. Many people and organisations have expressed profound anxieties about that. The Home Secretary tried hard in his opening speech to dispel some of the doubts. Many of his comments are reassuring if the provision is used in the restricted way that he outlined. However, it will require further consideration in Committee, and I flag that up to the right hon. Gentleman now.
The Home Secretary and I—and, I suspect, most hon. Members—agree that the advances in DNA technology over recent years, and the DNA database that was set up under the previous Administration, have provided the police with an important tool in the fight against crime. We should therefore be extra careful before writing into law any measures that might adversely affect public confidence in the use of DNA by the police. I hope that the Home Secretary acknowledges that, and that we shall have a constructive debate on the matter in Committee.
There are also civil liberties concerns about the proposals on Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise records. It has been pointed out that a court order is required for the release of much confidential information which most people would regard as privileged. We want assurances from the Home Secretary that disclosure will take place only when it is manifestly required in connection with a serious investigation.
Will the Home Secretary also tackle the anxieties of the Confederation of British Industry? It fears that disclosure to overseas anti-trust authorities of information held by the Office of Fair Trading could lead to criminal anti-trust proceedings in other countries where competition laws are enforced in the criminal courts on a different basis.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does the right hon. Lady object to the transfer of


information between the Department of Social Security and other Departments about social security fraud? How is the problem that she outlines different from that?

Miss Widdecombe: I have not objected in principle to the provision. I do not object in principle to the transfer of information between Departments. Indeed, I applaud it. I have often wished that rather more of it could be done and that it was more effective. I am raising a specific issue, to which the CBI drew attention, about the way in which information is transferred to other countries, where people might be vulnerable to prosecution because the law is different from ours. There might be a perfectly good answer that might reassure us. Even without one, however, the benefits may outweigh the disadvantages. However, we would be wholly lacking in our duty if we did not consider a major concern raised by the CBI. I did not say, "Will the right hon. Gentleman abandon his proposals?" I asked him to address the concerns expressed by the CBI. I should have thought that the answer to that was yes.
The Bill also provides the opportunity, by way of amendment, to tackle violence and intimidation against scientists and staff at facilities such as the Huntingdon Life Sciences laboratory and other research centres throughout the country. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—as are Members on both sides of the House—for the announcement that he made in that respect. However, will he also comment on the report in The Times today, which states:
Measures drawn up by … the Home Secretary … will address only four of the main 20 tactics used to intimidate researchers"?
Is he considering further the representations made to him by the Research Defence Society for even stronger action to prevent the harassment and violence to which workers at those facilities have been subjected? Perhaps the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), will be able to clarify the situation when he winds up the debate.
Today is the second anniversary of the introduction of the Home Secretary's special early release scheme—the home detention curfew programme—that has seen more than 30,000 convicted criminals released from prison before they served even half their sentence. That fact is far more indicative of the right hon. Gentleman's attitude towards crime and the criminals who commit it than any of his protestations about being "tough on crime", either today or previously.
The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants to tackle disorderly conduct on our streets—but he has let out of prison thousands of offenders convicted of violent disorder, affray, aggravated bodily harm and grievous bodily harm before they served even half the sentence imposed by the courts. The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants to crack down on drug dealers and traffickers by handing out travel restriction orders—but his promises ring hollow when we know that, under his scheme, he has released 4,000 drug dealers and traffickers early. He says that he supports the police, yet under his policy more than 200 criminals convicted and sent to prison for assaulting police officers have been let out early.
That the Bill contains no provisions to ameliorate the worst excesses of that scheme—or, indeed, to abolish it altogether—is yet another indictment of the approach taken by the right hon. Gentleman. We shall introduce such provisions in Committee, on Report and, if necessary, in another place.
The Opposition will give the right hon. Gentleman the chance to admit his mistakes and to amend his Bill. However, we know—and, I suspect, the Home Secretary is even now beginning to realise—that the country will not be so ready to give him a second chance on polling day. The people of this country—having seen the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's policies—will make the ultimate amendment.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Apart from that final peroration and rant, it is disconcerting to follow so bewilderingly reasonable a speech from the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe).
The right hon. Lady ran amok only once or twice—once when she referred to the wave of violent crime sweeping the country. On that point, it is appropriate to quote from a letter that I received last Friday from the chief constable of Greater Manchester, which dealt with the crime statistics for our area. He stated:
Violent crime rates have been exacerbated by a change in the counting rules, by the inclusion of incidents of common assault.
We have experienced not so much a wave of violent crime as a wave of statistical reform. However, I do not blame the right hon. Lady for trying to profit from that. When I was shadow Home Secretary, I used what little ammunition I had at the time—she has even less.
That is further demonstrated by the fact that, in her interesting and, in essence, responsible speech, the right hon. Lady failed to refer to the criminalisation of drug use. We were waiting to hear more from her about her proposals on that matter, because the country took such a keen interest in them when she put them to the Conservative party conference last autumn.
I pay tribute to the police force in general and, in particular, to Greater Manchester police, especially the local police who work in my constituency and are so valued by my constituents. I also pay tribute to the concerned constituents of Gorton and elsewhere who do not simply express an interest in such issues and attend meetings about them, but are willing to have a go against criminals and to provide evidence and act as witnesses when there is such fear of intimidation. I am glad that the Bill will help to reduce the fear of intimidation among those who come forward as witnesses, although some fear will, of course, always exist.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary used the phrase "low-level crime" in his speech, but he was careful to say that, although much of the crime that affects our constituents may be described as such, it nevertheless has a serious effect on their quality of life, and on their sense of being safe in their homes, on the streets, in their neighbourhoods and when going about their lawful occasions.
Statistics can be looked at in many ways. The chief constable of Greater Manchester has been good enough to write to me about the statistics in our area and in the police division that covers my constituency. It is interesting that some of those statistics go against the common perceptions about crime. For example, under this Government, there has been a substantial reduction in the burglary of dwellings in Manchester's C division. There has also been a considerable reduction in vehicle crime. Most of our constituents would not believe that that was so from their experience.
Given that I have been a victim of burglary and vehicle crime during the past few months, I might contribute my own anecdotal evidence, but the fact is that the police are dealing with such crimes more effectively. The number of offences is falling because being caught is the best deterrent. Of course, we want the number of crimes to fall even further. That will happen, we hope, because despite the statistics offered by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, the Government have, in fact, given a great deal more money to the Greater Manchester police and the number of police in that force has increased.
I am sure that the chief constable and the men and women who work with him would say that the increase is not enough and that not enough people are being recruited to the force. However, Greater Manchester police has received a 15.6 per cent. increase in finance, and the number of police officers is steadily increasing. The chief constable has told me that the projected force strength for 31 March 2002 is 7,242—an increase of 389 officers since 31 March 2000.
Problems are being tackled, but those efforts do not always succeed by any means, and any hon. Member who is complacent about crime and the resources given to the police to tackle it would be ill serving his or her constituents. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the efforts of the police and the efforts of the Government in backing the police are showing results. We want more. My constituents will judge my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Government not only by the legislation that they introduce and the will that they show, but by results and by what happens on their streets and in their neighbourhoods. I know that my right hon. Friend would not wish any other criteria to be used.
Of the many provisions in the Bill, I shall refer to only a handful. It should not need to be said, but I shall make it clear that the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens not only do not commit crime, but would never dream of committing crime. We are talking about a small number of people whose effect on society is out of all proportion to their number.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald referred to this point, and I very much welcome the provisions that will allow the police to designate those areas where drinking in public places disrupts the community. I often go for a quiet drink in my constituency, but not on a pub crawl; and I never have 14 drinks at one time. Most of the people who drink in pubs simply want a quiet night out and a drink with friends, but there is no doubt that behaviour takes place inside and, more often, outside pubs that disrupts local community life. I very much welcome the measures in the Bill that will enable the police to take a firmer grip of that problem.
The measures will give the police the power to close licensed premises. I hope that they will not have to use the power too often, but I have strongly in mind one pub in my constituency—I could, but will not name it—where the people who live nearby would clamour for such a closure to take place if need be.
I also welcome the Bill's provisions for the protection of witnesses. Some very tough people in my constituency are ready to come forward. For example, Irene Thorp—

who lives in Craig road, Gorton—is not very tall, but she is a giant in her courage and readiness to combat criminals even though she herself has been violently assaulted. She and other groups of concerned citizens in different parts of my constituency would be assisted if people were able to come forward with greater confidence that they would not be intimidated and that their houses would not be attacked. Therefore, I am very pleased with the measures that will enhance the protection of witnesses.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Before my right hon. Friend moves on from the issue of alcohol-related crimes, does he agree that many of them take place not where the alcohol is purchased, but at the sites of others businesses, such as the local kebab shop or taxi rank? The introduction of on-the-spot penalties is important to deal with such crimes.

Mr. Kaufman: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, with one proviso. One stretch in my constituency—it is near where I live—has so many kebab shops that, if there were an outbreak of violence there, we would not be able to contain it however strong the curry. None the less, I agree with my hon. Friend's point.
I welcome another provision that my constituents have asked me for again and again in the meetings about crime that we hold all over the constituency. In that regard, I thank the priest of the Sacred Heart church who makes his church hall available. Numerous requests have been made for the extension of curfews to cover teenagers. The readiness of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to extend curfew provisions to people below the age of 16 will be greatly welcomed. I say again that we want not only the powers but for them to be exercised. I therefore very much welcome the ability of the police, on their own judgment, to impose curfews, if they believe that to be appropriate.
There is one provision among all the others that I welcome and which the police in my area will greatly welcome: clause 128, which requires reasons to be given for granting, as well as for declining to grant, bail. I recently had a meeting with the chief constable of Greater Manchester and Superintendent Brinnand, who is responsible for much of my constituency. The police are frustrated when they take effective and efficient action and get culprits to court, but the courts are excessively lenient not only in sentencing but in the way in which bail is handled. That deeply exasperates the police and therefore those whom they exist to serve. I shall give three examples of the way in which the police in my constituency do their job, but with the best will in the world, the courts are not backing them up as they ought.
I am sorry to say that in certain parts of my constituency large gangs of youths commit numerous violent street robberies and other antisocial offences. In one area, the problem was so serious that the police mounted an expensive operation specifically targeted at a gang of street robbers. Earlier this very month, the police observed four members of the gang assault a lone male and attempt to rob him. The offence was extremely violent and was observed in its entirety by several police officers—bearing out what my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said. There was no question, therefore, of poor identification.
All four were charged with assault with intent to rob and remanded in custody until a court hearing was available. Two of the four were bailed by the court and robberies have since continued in the area. Both of those bailed were 21 years of age, with previous convictions for violence, and both are being investigated concerning further robbery offences in the area.
I give another example. A youth, whom one might almost call a child, since he is only 14 years old, is one of the two still in custody for the offence about which I have just talked. He has been arrested for more than 50 offences since 1997, when he committed his first robbery at the age of 11. Most of the offences are street robberies and others violent crimes. Most of them have been committed while he has been on bail. On numerous occasions, he has been remanded in custody or in the care of social services only to be released on bail to commit further offences.
Finally, I refer to another individual, whose name I have. I will not name him; I do not in any way want to violate police activity or any sub judice rule. The man is a prominent member of a gang that has been involved in numerous shooting incidents, including several murders. He was arrested and charged with numerous offences, including conspiracy to supply firearms and drugs, rape and kidnapping. Three female witnesses are under protection such is the danger from him and the gang. He is still being investigated for several murders and shootings. He was remanded in custody by the police but granted bail by a judge in chambers at the end of 2000. He was set stringent bail conditions, none of which he complied with.
Such were the fears of the police that a large police operation was set up to recapture him. He was eventually arrested at a cost of £30,000 of police money. The man remains in custody. He was one of 14 members of his gang who have been arrested and charged with firearms and drug offences since last year. Despite the best efforts of the police, the serious nature of the charges and continuing problems in the area in which the gang was operating, 11 of the 14 gang members, including the man to whom I am referring, were given bail by the courts. Ten remain large.

Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman is rehearsing the inadequacies of the bail system. I agree with him. There is no disagreement on that. Does he accept, however, that the Bill will only compel a judge to give reasons? It will not restrict the availability of bail. If the right hon. Gentleman is serious about wanting to tackle the inappropriate use of bail, would it not be better to do what we want to do, which is to provide that one breach of bail conditions is enough, and that there must never be more than one chance?

Mr. Kaufman: I would not like to be as categorical as the right hon. Lady on this issue. Sometimes, when I listen to her, I think to myself, "I wish that I were as confident of anything as she is of everything."
The key feature is that the courts should use their judgment. Magistrates and judges know the facts. There are cases where the accused have a right to bail, but I do not want what might be called the profligate use of bail in circumstances such as those that I have described. I do not think that there is any serious difference between the

right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and myself. She will serve in Committee, and thank heavens, I will not. It will be for her to propose amendments and for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to deal with them.
I thank my right hon. Friend for all his work and for the close attention that he pays to the situation in my constituency and to legislation as a whole. I say on behalf of my constituents that we look to ever-increasing results. We do not want only some crime statistics to be improved; we want them all to be better. We want villains like those to whom I have referred not to be let out on bail. We want them to be sent to prison with long sentences so that they are not a danger to the community. As the Bill is moving towards that situation and has many good provisions, I welcome it. As always, in my sycophantic way, I congratulate my right hon. Friend.

Mr. John Major: There is a great deal in the Bill with which I can agree and to which I offer a fair wind. I would have happily said much of what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said. Indeed, in some instances I did so some years ago. I am delighted that we share a view. He mentioned in passing that he was a shadow Home Secretary. He was too modest to say that he was a first-class shadow Home Secretary. I always admired his work. I trust that one day he will be able to resume that eminent role, and that day may not be too far away.
I shall concentrate on what is in the Bill and on what I hope the Home Secretary may be inclined to add to the Bill in Committee. For years, Huntingdon Life Sciences in my constituency has been conducting Government-licensed experiments on animals to help research into cures for human ailments. The vast majority of local and political opinion on both sides of the political fence has been outspoken in favour of the research—not least, perhaps, because the Thalidomide Trust is based in my constituency. If experiments to the same depth as are now undertaken on animals had previously been conducted, the thalidomide tragedy might well have been avoided.
At Huntingdon, and at other places, experiments are taking place in an effort to try to find cures for cancer, AIDS, heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, asthma and other life-threatening ailments. I strongly support that valuable and necessary research. Others, however, do not: animal rights activists have opposed all of it. Some of them are animal lovers who wish to demonstrate peaceful opposition to something that they find distasteful. I believe that they are wrong, but they are entitled to their views. We have a long tradition of tolerance of peaceful protest, even concerning views with which we personally tend to disagree.
However, the animal rights movement is not composed wholly of such peaceful protesters—far from it. It is led and guided by what I can only call an anarchist minority using the tactics of urban terrorism. It is worth illustrating briefly some of the things that have happened in Huntingdon. Activists have fire-bombed cars outside my constituents' homes; they have attacked cars by throwing concrete blocks at them; and they have assaulted employees physically by spraying cleaning fluid in their eyes. There have been threatening phone calls by day and night and abusive letters—having seen some of them, hate


mail would be a more apt description—as well as direct, terrifying threats to kill or maim employees of Huntingdon Life Sciences.
Those threats are made against ordinary people carrying out their work, licensed, as necessary, by successive Governments. That is by no means all that the animal rights activists have done. They have used other unpleasant tactics: they have ordered services or purchases in the names of employees working on experimentation; published false advertisements in their names; and even, distastefully, ordered a hearse to collect the body of a loved one from someone's house.
It is easy for us to understand how distressing that thuggish behaviour can be. I stress that it is by good fortune alone that no one has yet been killed by those anarchists. One day, however, if those people continue to act as they have been doing, somebody will be killed. They have held demonstrations, sometimes large ones, outside private homes, including mine—but, unlike my constituents, I am pretty well protected. There have been large demonstrations in Cambridgeshire, not least in the city of Cambridge, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) will know. They are carefully planned and generally controlled by their leaders, not at the demonstrations themselves but some way away on mobile phones. Although far from the action, the leaders are intent on creating maximum disruption.
I accept peaceful protest, but such actions go far beyond peaceful demonstrations. The activists use similar tactics against secondary targets, especially if they think that they will be weak-kneed enough to give in to their threats. None of that behaviour is acceptable, and we need changes in the law—in the Bill, I hope—to protect innocent employees, companies, directors and shareholders alike. I had an opportunity to thank the Home Secretary for his actions on that front a few moments ago. I also express my thanks to the noble Lord Sainsbury for his action in helping to bring about the financial rescue of Huntingdon Life Sciences from the difficulties that it had run into, predominantly as a result of those demonstrations. Lord Sainsbury did an excellent job and I am most grateful to him.

Mr. A. J. Beith: It is not only at Huntingdon that the effects have been felt; staff in many other places are fearful. Many research companies are internationally owned, and it is important that it be clear that we are taking active steps to deal with such things, because investment decisions are being made about the future location of that research.

Mr. Major: The right hon. Gentleman is right, and I intend to turn to that point later. We are of one mind on this issue.
I understand that the Home Secretary has some proposals in mind. I strongly welcome his willingness to take action, although I have not yet had the opportunity to study his proposals in detail. It is essential that we soon amend existing legislation to prevent violent activists from maintaining personal information that enables them to target individual employees, directors and shareholders. Such targeting is unpleasant and often frightening for people going about their ordinary business. They are not

used to the targeting that people in public life sadly become accustomed to these days. They are people going about their ordinary life, for whom the experience is extremely frightening and unpleasant. They are going about their lawful business, which has been licensed by Parliament. They must have protection from such harassment.
I shall briefly touch on some of the changes that are necessary. We must look at ways to make it possible for all directors and shareholders potentially at risk—not every director and shareholder, but those who could arguably be at risk from the activists—to register their interest in a company such as Huntingdon Life Sciences in a fashion that protects their private addresses from public scrutiny. Of course, the registrar should have their private addresses, but we should consider the various options for preventing that information becoming generally available to people who will misuse it.
That will not be easy, and the change will need to be carefully managed, but there are a number of ways in which it could be achieved, and I hope that the Home Secretary will incorporate one or other of them in the Bill. I look forward to discussing that with him on another occasion. I regard the change as extremely important, for I have seen the anguish caused by what has happened.
I come to the point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). After Huntingdon Life Sciences obtained new financial backers from abroad, and the protesters were frustrated in their bid to close down the company and its work, one of the leading activists appeared on the media claiming that his movement would soon identify the new financial backers and target them.
I cannot recall the exact words that that activist used, but I recall the flavour of them, and I recall the gist of what he said. It was, I thought, a threat: "We have friends even in America, and we will get them." As I heard the interview, that seemed, given the activists' record, to be a threat of promised violence which ought of itself to be an offence, not something to be uttered with impunity time after time in various parts of the media.
We need also to borrow from trade union legislation and make it an offence—the Home Secretary touched on this—to protest against individuals in their homes and, in addition, to prevent secondary activity, such as protests against financial institutions or pension fund investors, and the staff who work for financial institutions or pension investors.
The present laws are shown by the new problem to be inadequate on a number of fronts. The harassment legislation certainly needs amendment, not least to make it more appropriate for the police to use it to prohibit the incitement of harassment and intimidation. At present, it is ineffective for that purpose. I have had some experience of trying to frame ways of dealing with such problems, and I understand only too clearly the difficulties that the Home Secretary and his Ministers will have in framing legislation to cover these points. It will not be easy, but it is possible and we must reconsider existing legislation.
The Malicious Communications Act 1988, for example, illustrates the problem. The Home Secretary touched on that earlier. Section 1(2) of that Act states:
A person is not guilty of an offence … if he shows—(a) that the threat was used to reinforce a demand which he believed he had reasonable grounds for making; and (b) that he believed that the use of the threat was a proper means of reinforcing the demand.
That dates from some way back, and I can imagine the sort of late amendment that was rushed through to make sure that the Bill met its timetable. Every Minister has had experience of that, but let us consider what the provision says. It says that a threat is not an offence if there were reasons to make it to reinforce a demand. What nonsense is that?
Threats against individuals are not justifiable in any circumstances. In any event, without wishing to be flippant. I should have thought that the precise wording of that subsection was so woolly that it would make it possible for any taxpayer to indict the Inland Revenue under it. Unless the Home Secretary amends it, people may take that advice and do so.
We clearly need to examine existing legislation to deal with emerging problems. Many other changes need to be made, but discussion of those may not be appropriate for a Second Reading debate in which many hon. Members want to speak. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for agreeing to see me so that I may put some detailed suggestions to him. I look forward to that meeting.
I shall touch on one other point, in conclusion. It would be immensely helpful to the industry, to which the Minister and his team have recently given such support, if in his winding-up speech this evening, the Minister of State could confirm the following points unambiguously: first, that the present UK legislation governing the introduction of new medicines demands that they be tested on animals before human trials can occur; secondly, that animal tests are also demanded by regulatory authorities to ensure the safe manufacture, transport and use of agrochemical s and other chemicals; thirdly, to confirm that, in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 enforced by the Home Office inspectorate, as the Home Secretary said earlier, the UK has the strictest regulations governing the conduct of animal research that can be found in any country in the world; and fourthly, that the current legislation demands that in safety testing, researchers must assure the Home Office that no non-animal alternative tests are available before authority is given for any testing on animals.
I ask for those points to be unambiguously made by the Minister of State, because each and every one of them is perverted by those who oppose the research, and much public opinion accepts the rebuttal of those points. It would be immensely helpful to have them clearly and unambiguously stated by a responsible Minister.

Dr. Ladyman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I never thought that I would be able to say that I agree 100 per cent. with his speech, but will he go a little further? Much of what he said has been about the threat to animal experimenters. Will he go on to say that we need to make sure that the changes to the legislation cover attacks on all scientists? Much of what the right hon. Gentleman says applies to people in GM research, the nuclear industry and many other fields of scientific endeavour.

Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right, and I am happy to endorse that. He must forgive me if, having

seen what has happened in my constituency over the past three years, I focused on the problems there, so that my constituents are aware that the Government take the problems seriously—as, indeed, the Government do—and intend to take action. However, the hon. Gentleman is right and I endorse everything that he said.
The companies carrying out scientific research on animals are not operating casually outside the law. They operate within a tightly regulated and strictly controlled environment. They are doing work that they have been required to do by successive Governments. Their work is necessary to protect public health, to advance medical research, and to safeguard and improve the well-being of every citizen. They are carrying out work on behalf of the public and in the interests of the public, and they deserve the legislative protection of this House.

Mr. Alun Michael: I am sure the whole House will join me in congratulating the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) on an outstanding and thoughtful speech. It is a privilege to follow both him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), whose contributions have shown the importance of the debate. It may not catch the headlines that other debates in the House sometimes catch, but if the media regard this as a less than all-important debate, I am certain that our constituents will not agree.
I remember my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton from the time when I was a young magistrate. As the then shadow Home Secretary, he listened to us and understood the obstacles that were placed in the way of our doing what the public and the criminal justice system needed. I dare say that if my right hon. Friend had been Home Secretary 15 years ago, instead of shadow Home Secretary, we might not have had to endure some of the pain that we have gone through in the criminal justice system in recent years.
I am rather sad that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) was not more constructive. She said that she did not oppose the Bill, but all her language—including body language—spoke of arrogance and opposition. As shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary demonstrated that one can look serious on crime and disorder only by being serious on them. I am afraid that the Opposition have not yet learned that lesson.

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Did my right hon. Friend share my concern about the lukewarm reception given by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) to the extension of curfew schemes? He will have received the same Local Government Association briefing as has been submitted to me. Is he pleased that the LGA has welcomed the introduction of curfews for the under-16s? The measure begins to address an age group that is more likely to be involved in public disturbances than the under-10s. I know that he has experience of the joint problem-solving groups so will he acknowledge their important role in implementing the provisions?

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I shall deal with curfews in a moment, as they are an


important aspect of the Bill. However, I should like first to set out the context of a Bill that is about crime reduction and a wide range of criminal justice issues. At first glance, one might think it is a minor Bill but it is not, as it complements and advances the programme of reform that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has consistently pursued for a number of years.
The Bill takes us forward to the next stage in four different ways: it helps to continue the creation of a comprehensive approach to cutting crime; it helps to fill the gaps in the mechanisms, including sentences, that are used to deal with crime and the causes of crime; it makes progress on nipping problems in the bud, especially in respect of young offenders; and it focuses on cutting crime. The latter does not necessarily follow from crime measures, as it must be ensured that legislation, intentions and policy perspectives are carried through in practice. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will agree that it is vital to keep our eyes on those outcomes at every stage of the process.
The Bill contains a programme of sustainable crime reduction which falls well within the pattern of crime and disorder audits and strategies that are currently maturing. I mentioned in an intervention my delight the other week when I heard some 120 people from the police, local authorities and so on having a debate about continuing to push down crime. Three or four years ago, none of them would even have dreamed of having such a debate. That is a tribute not only to the decisions taken at that time, but to the way in which the ministerial team and the various professions that are involved are pushing the process forward, week after week and year after year.
The Bill deals with many important issues. The need to provide full reasons in respect of bail is far more important than the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald seemed to think. Currently, those responsible for decisions on bail must give reasons for refusing it, with the awareness that their decision might be tested. Surely it is an effective counter-balance for them to have to give reasons why bail should be granted. Such a measure will bring back into balance an arrangement that has been unbalanced for many years. It has previously been far too easy to test the intention of the court to refuse bail and to push for larger numbers to be given bail because that is the safe decision. A balance will now be in place.
Witness protection is crucial and the Bill is an important step forward in that respect. I am concerned that the antisocial behaviour orders involve something of a drift with regard to the bringing of matters to court by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, and with regard to the court itself, which can demand the test of the criminal law. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary knows and as the Bill intends, it is the civil test that must be applied. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will take this opportunity to remind the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts that it is the civil test that must apply. That practice is necessary specifically to ensure that people do not face the onerous burden of having to risk danger by coming to give evidence, as it will enable the court quickly to place the order, the breach of which becomes the criminal punishment.
The Bill also deals with drugs and violent crime, on which it is excellent to see progress. Having heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton mention the Greater Manchester police, I should like to speak about my constituency. I am certain that the police there will welcome the detail of the Bill with enthusiasm. I am especially pleased about the commitment shown by the police service, which is currently led by Tony Burden, who is president of the Association of Chief Police Officers.
Cardiff county local authority has also shown great commitment. In particular, I pay tribute to Gordon Houlston, who has taken a lead role. Safer Cardiff is bringing together a partnership approach, and I mention Barbara Natesagara in that regard. Unusually—although it should not be unusual—a great contribution has been made by Professor John Shepherd, nurses, other care staff and voluntary organisations in identifying people who experience violent crime and in trying thereby to avoid repeat offending. The health service's involvement in that partnership is a crucial step forward and should be encouraged.
As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald suggested, the issues with which the Bill tries to deal seem intractable. However, examples of progress, such as the reduction in violent crime in Cardiff and the other steps forward to which my hon. Friends have referred, show that circumstances are improving and that effective action can be taken.
The Bill contains some important steps to speed up youth justice. I pay tribute to the continued pressure exerted by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the ministerial team for delivery on reduction of the time that it takes to get youngsters to court. That commitment is being carried through into practice. Goodness knows it is a difficult one to fulfil, as anyone who has tried to do so will confirm. I pay particular tribute to Gillian Beranksi and her team in south Wales. When I met them the other week, I was delighted to see not only that they are getting on with the job, but that they are so enthusiastic. It has been good to see CPS lawyers working with the courts and the police to deliver and improve quality of justice, as well as deliver faster justice.
The enthusiasm of magistrates was also encouraging. I suppose that I was a bit ground down by the time that I entered the House. Indeed, it sometimes seemed that we could never speed things up. I can tell my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that magistrates feel liberated at being part of a system that is working and delivering. We should applaud that progress. Such development will occur in all parts of the country. All the partners need the tools, but the message is that they are up for it.
We were wary of curfews from the beginning. I remember the advice that I offered the Opposition in the Standing Committee that debated the Bill that became the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. My advice then was that the curfew should be first established for under-11s, after which we could go on to consider the question of ages. Concerns were expressed about massive numbers. It was suggested that we would be overwhelmed and that youngsters would be so constrained by curfews that the measure would be an onerous burden. Of course, none of that happened. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald recognised that, but she was not as generous as she might have been.
I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is making two changes on curfew orders. First. the Bill gives the police the same powers as local authorities. Secondly, it increases to 16 the age at which they can apply. Those changes are crucial for a reason that has not been mentioned: they will end the culture of prevarication and excuses. Too often we hear that people are frustrated and angry about the continued harassment that they experience in their streets and the bad behaviour of groups of young people late at night. Such groups are often small, but they grow quickly if they are not nipped in the bud. Too often people come to me or to their respective Members of Parliament and say that nothing is being done. They say that they have talked to the police but are told that no action can be taken. Now, the instrument is in place and it can be used for young people of up to the age of 16.

Mr. Heald: We broadly agree about this issue now. However, would the right hon. Gentleman care to contemplate why child curfew orders have been such a failure so far? Not one has been granted. Why does Labour's most senior councillor, Sir Jeremy Beecham, say that the extension is unlikely to be used and that curfews are not the most important measure that could be taken? There seems to be lack of enthusiasm on the subject from some of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues.

Mr. Michael: I am glad to hear the grudging admission that the Opposition are now in favour of child curfew orders, and that they broadly agree with us. I wish that they would give a little more thought to the subject.

Mr. Heald: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Michael: In a moment; let me develop my thought first. I will return to Sir Jeremy Beecham in a moment.
I do not think that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) has understood the curfew order or the system. We need to ensure that this is not a bureaucratic process. As set out in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, it is not. The local authority—now it could be the police or the local authority—has to set out a scheme. It will have to make simple rules to the effect that, in certain circumstances, it will apply the scheme to young people in an area. It is a warning that the authority is serious; it is a warning to young people that unless they start to behave better, they may lose their liberty. Will the loss of that liberty to be out late at night be onerous? I have never understood why seven-year-olds should be out at 3 o'clock in the morning.
Such a step does not need to be onerous if the measures are used appropriately. First, curfew orders need not be used if partners can succeed with other powers. This is where I agree with Sir Jeremy Beecham. I think that, for many areas, the existence in the background of the curfew power will be sufficient to allow steps to be taken locally, for co-operation to be won with the local community and for something to be done. There are examples of where this has been achieved. Hamilton has been referred to on many occasions, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend, in framing guidance, will be looking to the acknowledged success in the Hamilton area.
The measure will succeed if the ground is well prepared. It is not a case of saying, "We want you all to stop coming out at night." The police and the local authority have to discuss the problem that they are facing and how to target the orders to get rid of the problem.

Why is the curfew order needed? Let me give one example. In my constituency, we were discussing the disorder on an estate and a lot of people in the room were saying, "Those youngsters are out of control. Something needs to be done about them. We' need to stop them creating havoc around the estate." One woman got up and said, "My little Johnny is one of those youngsters." Everyone said, "Johnny isn't too bad, he's a good lad." She said, "He's a good lad, he's a nice lad, but he's 6 ft 6 in and I'm 5 ft 2 in. His dad left home some years ago. I can't make Johnny stay in if he wants to go out; he says that everybody else is out, so why shouldn't he be?"
The curfew orders are about giving authority back to parents and communities, not about being excessively onerous. The more we can carry on without the need for specific curfews because people have understood the message and the community is being given back authority, the better it will be. Those are the sort of circumstances in which it is important for this mechanism to be used. Communities and parents need to be given back authority. They have to know that they have the support of the local authority and the police, as they have the support of the Government.
My final point is about partnership. I hope that in his winding-up speech the Minister will assure us that it is not intended that the police could go off at a tangent and impose curfews at will, any more than it was the intention that local authorities should be able to do so, nor that the consultation is simply a matter of going through the form. We expect the police, local authorities and communities to work together, do we not? We expect them to co-operate and to address the real issues of their area. Then the result will be liberating rather than onerous.
The crime and disorder partnerships work. Why is that? First, they focus clearly on a problem. They make sure that they have the facts through the crime and disorder audit. Secondly, they focus on outcomes—they want to see crime going down. Thirdly, they operate through a partnership that shares responsibility. In that case, the police and the local authority both have that responsibility. That is not appropriate for the curfew. It is likely that if both bodies had the responsibility, neither of them would exercise it. That is why I think that the proposed dual mandate is right. Otherwise, it would be a recipe for neither to make a move, and we need both of them to move together.
We must have that partnership. Use of the curfew must be set within the framework of the crime and disorder partnership.

Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He has not really answered my question, and I would like him to. Why has not a single child curfew order so far been made? My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) proposed in the Standing Committee considering the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 that curfew orders should apply up to the age of 16, which is what is now proposed. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this shows that the procedures for child curfew orders are too leaden and bureaucratic and that something must be done about them?

Mr. Michael: If the hon. Gentleman prayed in aid everything that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) proposed in Committee, he would be


defending an awful lot of indefensible measures. No, it shows nothing of the sort—it shows that they have not been tested. It shows that although we have heard a lot of rhetoric about the police not having the powers to deal with young offenders, those powers have not been tested. However, we accept that the younger age group has been targeted while the older age group really needs to be targeted. With the combination of the curfew extending to the age of 16 and the antisocial behaviour orders that can be targeted at the older age group, the tools are there to do the job.
As long as we hear in a couple of years that there are no more problems with youngsters on the streets causing mayhem late at night, I will not want the test to be how many curfew orders have been imposed; I will want it to be standards of behaviour in the community, protection of the public and communities that are strengthened by this measure and a proper understanding of it. I suggest that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire seek to understand the reasoning behind the measure and how it fits in with the reasoning behind the crime and disorder strategies that have been so successful but which have not had the enthusiasm and support from Conservative Members that we might have hoped for. Such strategies are based on the evidence of need; they target the appropriate groups, share support and are clear about outcomes. We can see from the enthusiasm of the partners in the crime and disorder strategies that those aims can be achieved.
I hope that in the guidance, the Home Secretary will point to the strength of partnerships as the core for creating stronger, safer communities, cutting crime and nipping things in the bud in respect of younger offenders. In particular, we do not want local authorities saying, "Let the police do it" or the police saying, "Let the local authority do it." We want them both to have the powers and to share the responsibility so that they do what is necessary, where the community wants it. That will build on the culture of sharing responsibility and effectiveness that we have started to build. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister shares those views and wishes the police and local authorities to push forward together. Let the philosophy be, "Together, let's do it."

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Government have now clocked up about 30 Home Office Bills since they came to power. I agree with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that there may be some merit in the fact that, for a change, there has not been a lot of sound and fury surrounding the Bill. Instead, there has been a welcome degree of discussion of the issues, some interesting and some also controversial. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I disagree with him about child curfews. He put the case for them, and I will put the case against them. There is much debate still to be had.
This is a long Bill, with 132 clauses and eight schedules. It is another example of a Bill that is much longer than it should be. It is probably a response to last year's request from the Prime Minister to give him something eye-catching before the election. Headline-grabbing, eye-catching ideas were looked for all over the Home Office departments. There are some things in the

Bill to do with police powers; it changes a few offences here, a bit of procedure there. It is a Christmas tree decoration Bill—the baubles are on the tree, because the Government need something to show in the window. The reality is that the Government wanted measures that made them look as though they were doing something in the run-up to the election. They have not had quite the success that they expected in their first three and a half years, given that the former shadow Home Secretary, now the Prime Minister, said that, if elected, the Labour Government would be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime.
I took some guests round Portcullis House the other day, and they asked me whether the trees in there were really fig trees. I said that I was not an expert, but I had been told that they were. My visitors said that, for fig trees, they had mighty small leaves. I reflected that the Bill does not provide fig leaves big enough to cover the Government's embarrassment.

Mr. Baldry: They are olive trees.

Mr. Hughes: If they are olive trees, that is the answer to the question.
It is a matter of record that the Government made three specific law and order pledges—I appreciate their honesty about the issue—and it appears that none of them will be met. It is clearly not the perception of the British public that the Government have been tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. All the opinion polls show that the public are not persuaded by the Labour Government's record on that issue. On the pledge for more bobbies on the beat, the Home Secretary struggled manfully on television yesterday to explain how that did not really mean more bobbies on the beat—just relatively more bobbies on the beat than before.

Mr. Heald: It was a metaphor.

Mr. Hughes: Well, it was not quite a metaphor, but it was an explanation that was certainly not persuasive.
Furthermore, it looks as though the target to cut by half the time for dealing with offending by persistent young offenders will not be achieved either. The Government have failed in their objectives and the resulting Bill is a rag-bag of bits and pieces—some good, some bad, some debatable, some not so important.
I am sad that we are being forced by the election timetable into a way of law-making which other countries wisely do not follow. Many of the Bill's proposals may have merit, but no one has ever checked to find out. It would have been better to have a more considered process for examining some of these controversial measures, instead of simply pulling them off the tree, as it were, and putting them into the Bill. We could have had a special Standing Committee, as we have with other Bills, or a draft Bill.
We could have done as the Finnish Parliament does, and taken the Bill proposed by the Government, given it a quick Second Reading, then sent it to a Select Committee where evidence could have been taken. A report could then have been brought back to the Government. In that way, a more considered way of legislating could have been achieved. Furthermore, we could have implemented a measure that the Association


of Police Authorities and I have called for: a standing conference on policing and law and order involving the police, police authorities, magistrates, lay people and politicians. Such a body could consider matters of this nature. However, we have none of those. Indeed, we are discussing measures concerning criminal justice literally a matter of days before we expect Lord Justice Auld to produce his review of the criminal justice system. That review may produce similar proposals to those in the Bill, or different ones. In any event, it is meant to be a comprehensive review.
It is sad that we are considering a controversial Bill containing some untested proposals—I share the view of Conservative Front-Bench Members on that point—a matter of weeks before the expected date of the election. The Bill will probably not become law before the election. If it does not finish in Standing Committee until 8 March, I can assure the House that the Lords are unlikely to whip it through in double-quick time, because its provisions have profound implications for civil liberties, among other things.
On a further practical point, we really should not have Bills in which one clause applies to England and Wales, another to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the next to the United Kingdom as a whole, and the next only to Northern Ireland. That is nonsense. Northern Ireland-only provisions, England and Wales-only provisions, and UK provisions are spread around the Bill. It would be far better to try to legislate more tidily, so that the Scots, the Welsh, the Northern Irish and the English would know what was in store for them and have a chance to debate it properly themselves.

Mr. Michael: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is part of the nature of the devolution process to have different responsibilities in relation to different parts of these islands? It is therefore sensible to deal with them in the context in which they make sense.

Mr. Hughes: Rather, this Bill may show up the weakness of the Government's devolution system, since I am sure that the Welsh Assembly would be interested in formally being consulted on the matters in the Bill that affect Wales—even if they do not relate to devolved issues—and in expressing a view on them. I am sure that the Northern Ireland Assembly would be similarly interested. There are lessons to be learned for the wider constitutional debate.
I have tried to distil the provisions of the Bill, which I believe raises 10 important questions. Should we have fixed-penalty systems, and if so when? Should we have curfews, and if so when? Those are two big, controversial issues. How should we deal with alcohol-related offences and offenders? How should we deal with drug-related offences and offenders? How should we protect witnesses and possible witnesses? When should people be granted bail? That central question was raised by the right hon. Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth and for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).
What should the information exchange entitlement between public authorities be? For example, should we allow information collected by the Inland Revenue to be passed to the social security system and vice versa? We have never had a great debate about that, but such measures are provided for in the Bill. What should the checks and balances on the powers of detention be? The Bill contains various proposals about that.
On the rights of the state to take and hold information, should it have the power to collect DNA samples and hold them without people's consent, even though those people have been found innocent? That is a very big issue, which we as a nation have never debated properly and widely. The Icelandic people, I understand, have had a great national debate about it and agreed that everyone would have their information put on the national database. Lastly, what should the structure nationally, regionally and locally of our police service be? The last two parts of the Bill deal with that question.
The Bill raises huge issues and I want to flag up the view held by me and my colleagues, which is in some respects similar to that held by the Conservative party. Some of the provisions in the Bill are reasonable and unexceptionable. We shall not, therefore, vote against the Bill on Second Reading; we shall support it tonight. We shall then seek to amend it in Committee and on Report, and we reserve the right to vote against it on Third Reading if some of the provisions that we regard as unacceptable have not been removed in the process. We hope to persuade people of our arguments between now and then.
One provision that is not in the Bill was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and by the Secretary of State, and several of my right hon. and hon. Friends have particular concerns about it. It touches on the issue of campaigners for animal rights. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), and my hon. Friends the Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) all have constituency interests in the matter, as do other hon. Members.
I share the general view that the right to protest and to express one's view is one thing. but that to do those things in a manner that intimidates and frightens not only those directly affected but many who are indirectly affected—the families and colleagues of those concerned—is entirely unacceptable. Whatever one's view about the rights and welfare of animals, one should not be entitled to behave exceptionally badly, as some people have in this country. I spoke to the chief executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences the other day, and to others. The problem seems to be much worse in this country than elsewhere, and we therefore need to deal with it in a way that will reduce that ability to threaten and intimidate.
I shall comment on the less controversial matters in the Bill first, before dealing with the three most controversial issues. On the alcohol-related measures, it seems entirely proper that if one is going to give a power to restrict the drinking of alcohol in public places, it should be given to the democratically elected local authority. We support that proposal. It involves a restriction of liberty, but it is one that a democratically elected local authority could adopt, although only after consultation with the police.

Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to continue for a moment?
On the closure of licensed premises, we support the proposal that in exceptional circumstances the police should have the ability to say, "I'm sorry, you can't carry on. Your pub is threatening the neighbourhood and


causing trouble." As drafted, however, the proposal is draconian and we would be better served by a yellow card, red card system in which a warning was followed by a closure. There is no such provision in the Bill. Under the current proposals, the police could go into licensed premises and close them unfairly, and, once the matter got into the court system, it could be difficult for the licensee to persuade the magistrates to allow him to reopen.
The proposals on the closure of unlicensed premises seem entirely justifiable, as are those for confiscating containers of drink. I understand that the police might not know whether there was drink in such containers, so the measures are necessary to protect the police from what might otherwise be an unjustified allegation.
The proposals to tighten up on serving drink to ensure that it does not go to under-age drinkers are also justified. However, I am not yet persuaded that the wording is right and we must ensure that we have a system that respects the interests of those whose job may mean that they encounter people who represent themselves as being of drinking age—over 18—but who are not. The postscript is that it is of course right to allow test-purchasing of drink by youngsters under the proper controls, just as tobacco is test-purchased to detect people who break the law.

Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that non-drinking zones and the powers of local authorities to designate them must be considered widely in the council and that the decision should perhaps be debated in full council rather than delegated to one cabinet member, because that could lead to difficulties?

Mr. Hughes: I have not talked to all my colleagues about that, but my initial response is that I share the hon. Gentleman's view. Liberty could be restricted in public places and such a big decision should I believe properly be taken by the full council.
I support the drug trafficking proposals. It is right that people could have their liberty to travel, to which they would otherwise be entitled, restricted if after conviction they could traffic in drugs while travelling. The only issue is that the Bill allows restriction without end, and we may need a maximum restriction. No one should have their ability to travel written off for the rest of their life because of offences they have committed, and I hope that the measure can be amended.
It is of course acceptable that the proposal on intimidation of witnesses should relate to civil as well as criminal proceedings. However, I am concerned that there is a burden of proof issue—the Minister will be aware of it—and simply using certain language or acting in a certain way should not immediately make it people's responsibility to show that they do not intend to pervert the course of justice.
More widely, and for all sorts of reasons—not just constituency experience over recent years—I say to the Minister that we still do badly in ensuring that witnesses and would-be witnesses are protected. The police struggle to protect such people and we do not yet have a system that works quickly. This very week, I am again trying to get somebody moved. Unless they move, they will not

feel confident enough to give evidence in a criminal case. The Crown Prosecution Service says that the case cannot be taken to court unless they give evidence. Therefore, it will be unable to prosecute an assailant. The current system depends too much on accidental opportunities to persuade local authorities to move people and we need a much better one.
There is a big question regarding the powers to transfer information between one authority and another. When people give information to the Revenue, do they expect it to go to all the other state authorities? The Revenue is concerned that people may not be as honest if they think that information will go elsewhere. There is an issue there and a further problem in relation to whether we should allow the Bill to be retrospective. I hope that we can amend it to prevent that from being the case, although it obviously has the endorsement of the Scottish Executive, as it is a United Kingdom provision.
The powers of seizure, which are to be extended, are welcome, but we must ensure that we do not give more power than is necessary.
I support the three proposals for making offences arrestable, although, again, they have been picked out of a list and many others could have been chosen. The categories are kerb crawling, failure to stop and report an accident resulting in injury, and importing to the UK indecent or obscene articles. It is perfectly reasonable for those to be arrestable offences and we would support that.
There are generally uncontroversial changes to the way in which we manage people in detention, but we must be careful about thinking that it is acceptable for the police to decide at a distance to extend someone's detention—it is proposed to allow that down the videolink or down the telephone. If someone's liberty is in question, the presumption must be that the person reviewing his or her detention is not 50 miles away at the end of a telephone, but close to the person who is in the cell. We must be careful about giving such extensive powers and careful about giving up the right of the House to consider all secondary legislation. We should not change the procedure from the affirmative to the negative resolution procedure.
Of the remaining non-controversial proposals, the two relating to the police include a proposed improved system for training. That I welcome, but the proposals on structures, particularly for the National Criminal Intelligence Service and others, are not uncontroversial and, as the Minister knows, the Association of Police Authorities has concerns. They appear to increase central Government control and reduce public and police authority control. Debates about control of the special police services and what to do with the police service are going on, but I am not sure that we have so far had the breadth of discussion that we need.
That leaves three issues: DNA, fixed penalty notices and curfews. The Liberal Democrats have never signed up to people who have not consented having their DNA held after being found not guilty or when a case does not proceed. Doing so represents a big step forward—in my view, a dangerous step forward in civil liberty terms. Of course DNA is helpful, but if the Government think that it would help if everybody's DNA was held, let them say, "When a baby is registered, a sample has to be supplied


to the registrar of births, marriages and deaths." That, effectively, is what the Bill suggests. If the Minister wants to confirm that, I should be happy to hear from him.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): To clarify, is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Liberal Democrats will oppose the Bill on Third Reading, following consideration in Committee, if the DNA proposals remain in their current form?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is a good and intelligent Minister, but that was a cheap and silly question, not least because I have already answered it. I said that we shall seek to amend various aspects, that our judgment as to whether we can support the Bill will depend on our success in getting amendments accepted and that we can give no guarantee at this stage that we will support it on Third Reading. We think that certain provisions need to be amended.

Mr. Clarke: With respect, I did not ask for a guarantee. I asked about the importance that the hon. Gentleman attaches to the DNA point, which is one of the range of issues that he will reconsider after the Bill has been examined in Committee. It would be of interest to the House to know where the Liberal Democrats stand on that important issue.

Mr. Hughes: Where we stand is straightforward: we are not persuaded that we ought to give a further power to the state—the police—to hold a sample taken in respect of a case that is not proceeded with or in which a person is found not guilty. If we remain unpersuaded, we shall consider that a possible ground for voting against Third Reading.

Dr. Ladyman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No, I am trying to allow time for other colleagues, as many want to speak.
Fixed-penalty notices strike me as fine to deal with a cyclist on the pavement or illegal car parking. Indeed, they are perfectly reasonable for dog fouling and litter dropping. However, it is unlikely that they will work in relation to drunken adults who may not stand around long enough to receive them or may not remember much about receiving them. Some cases may be prejudiced by a person's relative inability to comply with the fixed penalty. The proposal is unfair. The rich can pay up easily; the poor cannot. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) wants to intervene.
Those with learning difficulties, those who are less intelligent and those who are homeless may not be able to cope with the paperwork in the way that someone with all the time in the world and high intelligence can. The proposal is highly likely to be discriminatory. Summary justice, not normal procedural justice, may be done at the hands of the police in a system under which, the Library research note confirms, millions of pounds worth of fines already go unpaid. Last year, about £80 million of fines went uncollected and now we are to have another system that imposes fines on people who are least likely to pay up and will have to be monitored.
We are by no means persuaded in regard to fixed-penalty notices. I consider the proposal a fig leaf, intended to cover up the extraordinary content of a speech

delivered by the Prime Minister to academics in Tubingen, when he said that he would march people along to cashpoints. It is a fallback, intended to give the impression that that was not a completely barmy idea but only a half-barmy idea. The police are unlikely to have enough staff to deal with it, and would be perfectly happy for it not to be included. People such as Fred Broughton have made that abundantly clear.
The curfew proposal has been supported by, for instance, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. It would be one thing if such action were to be proposed and agreed by local authorities, but the Bill goes further, allowing the police to impose a curfew irrespective of a local authority's view. Admittedly the police must talk to local authorities, but they can go ahead even if local authorities say no.
When I talked to youngsters at Walworth school about the proposal, one said, "It's like keeping the whole class in when a few have misbehaved." It certainly strikes me as an entirely unfair principle in the context of civil liberties. Of course seven-year-olds should not be out on the street at 3 am, but 14 and 15-year-olds might have perfectly good reasons to be out at 9, 10 or 11 pm. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that community relations between police and young people will be helped if the police pick on young people regularly, he may be sadly mistaken.
The other day I spoke to some youngsters on the street—youngsters under 16, hanging around in just the sort of group that the right hon. Gentleman described. The public say that something must be done, but according to my experience the more the police stop and search them, the more likely they are to be antagonistic, unhelpful and unco-operative. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the curfew proposal will make all difficult youngsters suddenly disappear—that youngsters will become smilingly happy, feeling that the police are the most wonderful people in the world—Cardiff, South and Penarth has changed a lot since I was there in my youth.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman was probably one of the youths who caused trouble there in those days. He has clearly not learned from those days to do his homework first. He has not read the requirements, conditions, advice and guidance, any more than he listened to what I said. The measure can succeed only in the context of community support and a joint effort to tackle the problem, involving communities, parents, local authorities and the police; but that is what is proposed. Did the hon. Gentleman not understand that?

Mr. Hughes: Of course I did. The right hon. Gentleman should not become so excitable so quickly. If, however, he thinks it a good idea to start stereotyping, and to say that the Peckhams or Penarths of this world should contain no-go areas—curfew areas; "can't go out late" areas—I must tell him that I do not think it will be good for the law-abiding people, including young people, who live in those areas. It can only paint bad pictures: it can only make areas that look as though they have trouble look even worse. By all means let the police concentrate on the troublemakers, but they should concentrate on the troublemakers rather than the places where they live.
I hope I have demonstrated straightforwardly that Liberal Democrats have considerable concerns about a Bill that is good in parts, but very worrying in parts. We shall do our utmost to make sure that it is much better by the time it returns to this House.

Joan Ruddock: Last week one of my local newspapers, the News Shopper, featured a banner headline: "Crime is on the rise—report". A subhead referred to an increase of £30,000. It dealt a tremendous blow to both the police and the local authority, which had forged an extremely effective community safety partnership. It was, moreover, distressing for all of us because it was simply untrue.
In Lewisham, crime fell by 5 per cent. between the period from March 1999 to December 1999 and the corresponding period in 2000. Burglary fell by 16 per cent., and the borough was top of the Metropolitan police league table in respect of judicial disposals of such crimes. Car crime also decreased, and Lewisham was near the top of the league table in respect of clear-up rates.
The headline might have been justified, although clearly to a lesser extent, with regard to reporting of street crime, which has been on the increase in Lewisham and throughout the country—although the number of such crimes in Lewisham is lower than the Met average.

Mr. Chris Pond: I have here a copy of one of my little newspapers, which reports a crime increase of 10 per cent., and states that, in Kent, crime fell by 23 per cent. during the same period. That paper is the Gravesham News Shopper. Do we detect a trend?

Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend makes an important point.
Even where certain crimes have increased, most people are not the direct victims. Most people feel, however, that their quality of life is threatened and often diminished by the fear of crime, which is why it is so reprehensible that local newspapers exaggerate crime levels. Antisocial behaviour gives rise to anxiety, and also creates an impression of lawlessness. That is why I welcome the Bill.
I want to talk mostly about low-level crime. I welcome the measures relating to young people. Let me also say, however, how much I appreciate the provisions for enhanced witness protection. Like many of my hon. Friends, I have dealt with a small but terribly distressing number of cases involving people who have been willing to come forward, but have subsequently lived in terror of victimisation. We owe it to them to improve their treatment.
In Lewisham, as elsewhere, young people commit a disproportionately large number of crimes. In our crime and disorder audit, the statistics relating to robbery, violence against the person, theft and handling all demonstrate that the highest offending rate was among those aged between 15 and 24, and that the second highest was among those aged between 10 and 14. Victimisation of those same groups is equally high, however. In the context of robbery and violence, the highest rate of victimisation was among those aged between 10 and 24.
A raft of Government measures are already addressing many of the underlying causes of crime. Unemployment—to name but one—is falling dramatically in my constituency. Nevertheless, there is a real need for more deterrence. Both my local authority and the Lewisham police service generally welcome the Bill: they are delighted by the Government's recognition that the yob culture will no longer be tolerated.
At present, most people arrested for drunkenness—certainly in my area—get off with a caution. Not even a night in the cells seems to act as a deterrent, and there is a feeling that the courts do not view drunkenness as a serious matter. Such is the frustration of my constituents and my local authority that they are in the process of constructing a case for a byelaw on street drinking. I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said about such applications for byelaws: they are difficult to draft, and the local authority has been greatly concerned about the difficulties involved. The Bill will be helpful in that regard as well.
In my experience, there are two kinds of street drinker. There are the long-term alcoholics, who are usually older and penniless, and there are the daytime drinkers, who cause serious offence but who really need "wet centres" and other ways of being helped to overcome a habit that can no longer be deterred. I trust that we can give more help to local authorities and volunteer organisations to try to tackle the—admittedly small—number of people who engage in such disruptive activities.
A much more widespread problem is that of young people who are fit and healthy and who seemingly have unlimited funds with which to purchase alcohol. They cause continual misery to my constituents in their rowdiness in the streets and around drinking places—not only licensed premises, but off-licences as well—particularly in the evenings and at night, on the buses, the tubes and the trains, where they are intimidating and cause real concerns. Indeed, they probably deter many people from travelling when they would wish to do so. It is for that reason that we believe that fixed-penalty notices will be a deterrent and very helpful in trying to deal with that type of antisocial behaviour.
There will always be a limit on the number of those who can be arrested, however many police officers there are on the streets. On the issue of police officers, I tell my hon. Friend the Minister that my borough commander, Mike Humphrey, is very much of the view that the increased payment for police officers in London, and the free travel to be introduced next month, will greatly aid recruitment and retention.
We cannot, however, reduce this debate to simple numbers. As I said, it will never be possible to arrest all who are involved in antisocial behaviour, regardless of what powers or penalties we have. That is why the rest of the Government's initiatives on youth offending are so important and why local partnerships are crucial too.
In Lewisham, the arrest-to-charge target of two days and the first court appearance target of seven days have been met in 84 per cent. of cases, and that is a very considerable achievement. However, it should be seen alongside the many new and imaginative programmes that never existed before the Government were elected. I think that Lewisham was even ahead of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in targeting mobile telephone crime. We have a special scheme whereby people are encouraged


to protect their telephones by recording the IMEI—international mobile equipment identity—number which is unique to every telephone. That programme has gone to our primary and secondary schools and our local colleges.
Additionally, 10 schools have been targeted with theatre workshops that help children to define robbery and bullying, to consider their legal and social consequences, and to help them to judge their peers and to attempt to modify their own behaviour. The programme is enormously important, and it is to be properly tested so that, when it is in operation, measurements of street crime and bullying will be taken within a half-mile radius of schools participating in the programme.
We are also grateful to my right hon. Friend for selecting Lewisham borough as a pilot for testing the effect of restorative justice on reducing offending by young individuals. Young people will be confronted with their actions and made to realise the consequences of their crime, both for their victims and for the wider community. It is a pilot, building on an already successful scheme that has involved 40 people in the past year in making some type of reparation.
Finally, I should like to say a few words on the issue of new measures to close down licensed premises. In the past year, I have been dealing with some very serious nuisances at two public houses in my constituency. Both premises are in entirely residential areas where their large back gardens abut the gardens of many neighbours.
As we all know, today's pubs are completely different from the drinking places that were established many years ago. I am speaking about Victorian and Edwardian terraces and public houses. Today, amplified music and eating and drinking outdoors, which are associated with licensed premises, have become a major problem to many of the people living around those areas. I am told by residents that, in the summer, they cannot hear themselves speak indoors because of the noise. They also cannot go into their gardens because of the noise, the bad behaviour, the bad language and the quantities of food that are consumed—with the associated smells—and even thrown into their own gardens.
The problem has become a nightmare for very many people in my constituency. Many of them thought that, come winter, the nightmare would end, but for the advent of outdoor heaters and new year's day barbecues in Deptford. It has become a very serious problem. A great deal of drunkenness and riotous behaviour are occurring in just a few of our public houses and in the surrounds of those buildings; and they have to be dealt with. It is utterly unacceptable to us that the rights of those who run public houses and the rights of those who seek to enjoy themselves should have more sway than those of the hapless victims who are the neighbours of those licensed premises.
I join my right. hon. and hon. Friends in welcoming the Bill, which gives us new opportunities to build on the highly successful crime and disorder partnerships that have brought new hope of crime reduction and reduction in antisocial behaviour to so many of our local communities.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: I begin by declaring an interest, as always, as a recorder of the Crown court, an acting deputy district judge in the magistrates courts, and a solicitor.
It would be very churlish of me not to wish the Bill well. It is well intentioned. However, it is also rather feeble. We have to consider it against the backcloth of the current situation in the world of crime and the world of law and order. We have decreasing police numbers and a collapse in police morale in many parts of the United Kingdom. Gun crime is at its highest for seven years, with 42 deaths from 4,000 incidents last year involving handguns. That just proves to all of us, if we did not know it, that gun legislation was a mistake.
We have a massive increase in violent crime. In many areas, robbery—much of it street robbery—has increased by more than 20 per cent., especially among under-18s. Additionally, drug-related crime—which is committed to finance a heroin or cocaine addiction—is increasing relentlessly.
I therefore looked forward with some interest to the Government's flagship crime Bill, which is possibly the seventh such Bill that we have had in the past three and a half years. However, I was very disappointed when I read the Bill's opening provisions. Speaking from a practitioner's point of view, I am bound to say that, although the provisions on penalty offences may be well intentioned, they have not been thought through and they will consequently be ineffective.
I should like to focus on clause 1, which is annotated in the Bill as dealing with
Offences leading to penalties on the spot".
However, that is the first inaccuracy, because the penalties are payable not on the spot, but at a later stage.
The clause then describes a motley collection of about one dozen offences, from the very minor—such as being drunk in a highway—to very serious public order offences. Apparently all the offences qualify, at a policeman' s discretion, for a so-called penalty ticket. Goodness knows who dreamed up and drafted the Bill's penalty-notice provisions. Whoever it was, I suggest that he or she knows not a great deal about the criminal law and even less about the real world of crime, criminals and the courts in the United Kingdom. I suspect that it was someone who rarely steps out of his or her closeted office in Whitehall.
The truth is that the proposals are cumbersome and fraught with difficulty. A great deal more work needs to be done on them. I share the view of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—who really does know what he is talking about on so many of these issues—that prior consultation on the provisions would have been so helpful.

Mr. Charles Clarke: It has been made clear—perhaps it should be made clearer—that there was full consultation on the Bill. The precise list of offences that was drawn up came as a result of representations from precisely the organisations the hon. Gentleman is talking about, and was not drawn up in any ivory tower.

Mr. Malins: I have not mentioned any organisations. I wonder whether the stipendiary bench, the Crown court judges or the solicitors who practice in the criminal courts were consulted.
I wish to set out a few problem areas to which insufficient thought has been given. The penalty notice provisions apply only to somebody over 18, but most of


the offences under the clause are much more likely to be committed by persons under 18, who are completely exempt from the provisions of the Bill. Why is that? Is it sensible?
Who selected these particular twelve offences, and on what basis? They vary from the not so serious to the very serious. Wasting police time is a serious offence under the Criminal Law Act 1967 and, rightly, carries up to six months in custody. In what circumstances should a policeman merely issue a ticket for such a serious offence? Likewise, under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1967, threatening behaviour is another offence which can be minor or really quite serious.
The Minister ought to focus on the age problem. Take this example. A constable sees two persons trespassing on the railway, which is a penalty ticket offence. One looks over 18, but is not. The other is over 18, but does not look it. What does the constable do? Can he demand proof of age? Is the constable to make up his or her mind? What if a constable gives a ticket to someone whom he believes to be under 18, only to discover that the person is not? Would what the lawyers call an estoppel operate, preventing a charge being brought against that youngster? That is a serious issue, given that someone receiving a penalty ticket and paying it quickly completely escapes a criminal conviction.
Here is another example. A known 17-year-old and a known 19-year-old are jointly sending telephone messages to cause annoyance, which is another penalty offence. How fair is it for the 19-year-old to escape without conviction because he pays a penalty, while the 17-year-old inevitably gets a criminal record for the same activity?
How many penalty notices can be acquired before a person is brought to court? Is there any provision in terms of building up a record of notices? We have no idea under the Bill what the financial penalty will be. We are told that there is to be a certain maximum, but no guidance is given. Can the Minister help? Does the police officer issuing the penalty have any discretion as to the amount? That is a most important question.

Dr. Ladyman: My reading of the Bill suggests that the constable has the option of taking the individual back to the police station before issuing the penalty notice, so such matters could be determined there. Also, the constable has the option of not giving the penalty notice, but proceeding with a court action in the usual way.

Mr. Malin: The hon. Gentleman is right; perhaps the constable has too much discretion. If he has discretion as to the amount of the penalty that he can give on the spot—despite his other possibilities—there will be a problem as to how he accurately assesses the offender's means. Is it wise for him to be allowed, in effect, to take powers of judicial discretion? Or is the penalty absolutely fixed for every single offender?
We must remember that public order offences cover a wide spectrum of behaviour and in court would command widely differing fines, depending on the facts. If the penalty were fixed, it could be much too high or much too low for particular offenders. Offenders of different means would be severely affected. Courts always take into

account the defendant's means before fixing a fine and they give poor defendants time to pay. if a poor offender were given a penalty notice without being given time to pay, that might be grossly unfair. A poor offender who could not pay within 21 days would have to go to court and get a conviction, merely because of his poverty.
As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, collection of the penalties will be difficult in the courts around London. It is worth remembering that most of the offences that come before me in the London courts are committed by those who are on benefits, out of work and without a bean in their pocket. It should not be imagined that we have courts filled with queues of defendants wearing smart suits. Our courts are full of people who are on the breadline. How are they treated by the Bill? Do they get the same fixed penalty? Who makes the decision?
Where does a fixed penalty stand in relation to a caution? Is it to be recordable? Will magistrates be told in later court proceedings about previous fixed penalties? Would not a formal caution have a greater deterrent effect than a fixed penalty, especially if the offender denied the offence but did not bother to ask for a trial? He would then get a fine registered against him, which he would ignore because he does not believe it to be fair.
Furthermore, there will be pressure on people to pay the penalty to avoid having a trial and the risk of conviction and a criminal record. It is manifestly wrong to put pressure on people in this way. A penalty does not amount to a criminal record; the Bill makes it clear that the person concerned shall escape conviction. However, poorer people are disadvantaged by their inability to pay up whatever is demanded within the time demanded.
If the Minister cannot deal with my questions, I would ask him to ask his officials to draft some answers and let me have a full response. People are entitled to answers to these genuine questions. How can a person who fails to request a trial within the time limit avoid the penalty plus 50 per cent? He may have been ill or have had an accident; there are all kinds of possibilities. This could be yet another fine mess for the courts to sort out.
I am worried about the burdens on the police. Clause 3 talks about the notice that had to be served. Can anyone imagine a policeman in the street issuing to some potential offender a notice stating the offences, giving the particulars of the circumstances, specifying the suspended enforcement period, stating the amount of the penalty, stating the justice's chief executive to whom it should be paid—I need not go on. I say to anyone who believes that that will happen on the streets of London, or any other city, with any effect: get real.
The provisions on licensed premises seek to impose a reverse burden of proof on the defendant. That seems to be open to challenge by the European Court of Human Rights, as indeed may be the concept of travel restrictions on drug traffickers who have completed their sentences.
Many things that the Government have tried have been well intentioned. Antisocial behaviour orders were well intentioned, but they have failed. Drug treatment and testing orders were well intentioned but—particularly in the Gloucester experiment—they have failed too. I fear that many of the provisions in the Bill are well intentioned, but will have no real impact on the amount of street crime in this country.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I remind hon. Members that the 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches applies from now until 9.30.

Maria Eagle: As I have just caught the 10-minute limit, my contribution will be a little shorter than it would have been—but perhaps it will be the better for that.
Liverpool is one of the safest cities in the country. The fact that I can say that so confidently is a tribute to the people of the city, to Merseyside police and to the other partners in the local crime reduction partnerships. It is no surprise that the crime reduction partnerships are known as Citysafe, because we are proclaiming something of which we are all very proud.
Since the election of the Labour Government, there has been a 2.5 per cent. fall in recorded crime, with especially large falls in domestic burglary and robbery, although there have been increases in certain other crimes, and I want to concentrate on those. The city of Liverpool has pioneered the use of antisocial behaviour orders, with a concentration on youth disorder and low-level disruptive criminal behaviour.
For two and a half years, we have had a central antisocial behaviour unit in Liverpool, in which expertise has been gathered and through which cases have been taken to court. One of the first antisocial behaviour orders was made in Liverpool. When orders have been obtained, they have been relatively successful, in that serious problems of antisocial behaviour have been dealt with, but a difficulty has developed over the past couple of years, and in particular over the past six months, as the local authority has allowed staffing levels at the unit to fall, partly because it took its eye off the ball and froze the posts when staff left. That has now changed, and recruitment is going ahead.
The crime reduction partnerships, the city council and the police have established protocols that mean that all serious cases of antisocial behaviour have to be routed through the antisocial behaviour unit. The problem with that is the one that we had in Liverpool before the orders were available or the unit was set up: the local police and housing officers can pass the cases on to somebody else. It is not appropriate for every case to be passed to a central unit: serious cases should be dealt with at such a unit, where the expertise, the lawyers and the enforcement officers are available to deal with them, but I have always viewed the orders as a tool of early intervention rather than a weapon of last resort, and I am very much afraid that in Liverpool they are becoming a weapon of last resort.
In a recent article in the Liverpool Echo, the councillor responsible for the antisocial behaviour unit said:
We try to do all sorts of things before we serve an ASBO. We only go to court if we have no alternative.
To me, that is a misunderstanding of the nature and aim of the orders, and I have been doing my bit to try to persuade people that it is more appropriate in more minor cases—which are none the less serious to neighbours who are badly affected—for the local chief inspectors and housing officers to go to the magistrates court and obtain

the orders, without having to bother the central unit. I would like the city council and the police to co-operate in making that a reality.
The Bill contains provisions for police training. It is a shame that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is no longer here, because she and I have been developing a dialogue about the importance of police numbers. In Liverpool, police numbers have gradually, gently fallen over the past 10 years—the fall has now stabilised, and there is a planned increase—yet over that period, and especially over the past three or four years, crime has fallen. Increased police numbers do not necessarily reduce crime. I want to discuss why that is, and what the police can do to make themselves more effective.
In the Merseyside police area, in an experiment in Knowsley—it is not in my constituency, but it is close by—a reorganisation of community policing has led to a 71 per cent. fall in youth nuisance. The experiment was dreamed up by a superintendent and a local chief inspector. There is a permanent police presence. The local officers stay in the area and get to be known by everyone there; there is a response team for emergencies; and a problem-solving approach is taken. It has been remarkably successful. In April, Merseyside police plan to reorganise all their community policing in that way. I think that that will be tremendously effective, and I congratulate them.
There are still problems in Merseyside police, however, that mean that a lot of resources are wasted that could be used to deal with low-level disorder and youth crime, which is the type of crime that upsets my constituents the most and adds to the impression that crime is increasing, when in fact it is decreasing.
Over the previous year, the wages of suspended officers cost the Merseyside police £320,000. The police cannot always deal with the cases of suspended officers as quickly as they might like—because of court cases, for instance—but two of the suspended officers had been on suspension for more than two years.
Suspensions are not the only problem: there are sickness and disciplinary matters. I was approached by a constituent who is a female detective constable who joined the force in January 1978. After 20 years of exemplary service, she was forced to go sick in August 1997, following what can only be described as bullying, sex discrimination and harassment. The grievance that she registered shortly thereafter was resolved only late last year.
The investigating officers retired, witnesses suddenly found that they themselves were under investigation, and there were medical retirements—all of which cost money and made the case drag on for three years. My constituent is unlikely to be able to return to work, while the officers who subjected her to bullying and intimidation have not even received words of advice. That is not acceptable in the modern police service.
In a 1999 Merseyside police staff survey, 17 per cent. of police officers said that they had been bullied in the previous year; 59 per cent. had experienced some form of harassment; 4 per cent. had considered leaving the service as a result of sexual, racial or homophobic harassment; and a further 18 per cent. had considered leaving as a result of another form of harassment.
Those figures are shocking. They show that good forces such as Merseyside police have serious internal management problems and problems of dealing with bullying and harassment that are costing the police, and therefore the taxpayer, hundreds of thousands of pounds a year that could be better directed to dealing with antisocial behaviour on our streets.
That is why I sometimes disagree with the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald that increasing police numbers is the answer. I would like more police to be recruited in Liverpool, but I want them to do a job for the people of Liverpool, not to spend their time bullying each other, being suspended or being off sick because of what other officers have done, and not being able to provide the service that they should.
Merseyside police are changing in a good way. They are seriously considering changing the way in which they police our communities. That is necessary, but there is more to do and I hope that they will do it. I want Liverpool city council and the local police to be more proactive in implementing antisocial behaviour orders, taking such cases to court and dealing with those matters as soon as possible.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I shall be brief because I want to make only two points, either of which could have been made in an intervention. Although the Home Secretary was generous with his time, he obviously wished to proceed with his speech and I was unable to intervene on him. I hope that the Minister will consider the two points in his winding-up speech.
I welcome the fact that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have decided not to vote against Second Reading, but my first point is that any good in the Bill is likely to be negated in my county of Hampshire. The Minister will be familiar with the argument about that, but I want briefly to bring it to his attention again.
The chief constable of Hampshire readily talks about a crisis in police numbers in the county. It arises from peculiar circumstances. The Government have provided funding for extra police in Hampshire this year, next year and the following year, but our problem is difficulty in recruiting. The crisis is such that the 62 places for which we hoped to recruit this year remain unfilled, and the police authority has approached the Home Office for permission to defer recruiting for those numbers until next year.
If we take normal wastage into account, Hampshire faces the problem of trying to recruit 300 officers. We fear that that cannot be achieved, and that any merits in the Bill and other comparable measures will be negated by the shortage of police numbers. The root of the problem is that police forces in counties such as Hampshire are simply uncompetitive. In places of high employment, high housing costs and relatively high salaries, the starting conditions in the police force are uncompetitive. I urge the Minister to consider that seriously.
Attention has already been drawn to the harassment and intimidation by animal rights extremists of scientists and others involved in medical tests. I welcome the Government's intention to introduce new powers to tackle

that serious problem. I want to make one point that relates to an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). I hope that the Government's intentions will be framed in measures that are not selective. Immediate attention is focused on the harassment and intimidation of those involved in medical tests on animals, but they are by no means the only people who are targeted. If I remember correctly, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) referred to the intimidation of scientists whose work relates to nuclear energy or genetically modified food. I hope that the Government will ensure that the measures are not selective and that they will apply to all those who may be affected.
I appreciate that the subject is controversial, but I want to refer to one specific category—the organised harassment and intimidation of those involved in the fur trade and fur retailing. The Home Office knows about the problem through correspondence and meetings with the victims of animal terrorists. The Minister has had several meetings and corresponded with representatives of the British Fur Trade Association, whose anxieties are real. Every act of violence and harassment that is perpetrated against those who work in animal testing laboratories has also been suffered by those who work in the fur trade. I hope that the Minister will consider that long-running problem and ensure that the Government's measures will also be effective for the fur trade.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in the debate. I want to concentrate on the Bill's provisions for combating crime and disorder. In an earlier intervention, I mentioned that some of my constituents work at Huntingdon Life Sciences, although the company is in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). I want to consider the harassment and intimidation suffered not only by the workers and shareholders of that company, but by other scientists who work with animals.
There may be more medical research staff in Cambridge than in any other constituency in the United Kingdom. They do valuable work, which enables us to find drugs that alleviate suffering from crippling diseases and helps us to make progress in many other spheres. For many years, Huntingdon Life Sciences has tested drugs and chemicals. Such testing is required by law. I wish that we could test drugs in other ways, without using animals. New methods are becoming available, but the law currently requires drugs to be tested on animals before they are used on humans. I do not believe that there is much choice about the matter. If a new drug is not tested on animals, it must initially be tested on humans. It is difficult to convey that message to some animal rights protesters.
I am pleased about our progress in the past three years on the use of animals in scientific procedures. There have been recent developments, and the Home Office has an excellent website that promotes the three Rs. They are:
reducing the number of animals used, refining procedures to minimise suffering and replacing animal use.
There will be an end to testing cosmetics, tobacco or alcohol products on animals. Animals will not be used to develop or test offensive weapons, and the use of great apes, gorillas, chimpanzees, pygmy chimpanzees and


orang-utans will not be authorised. A great deal of progress has therefore already been made. I hope that animal rights protesters will listen to my comments and to those of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon, who gave an excellent description of the stringent precautions that are taken to safeguard animals in testing.
Despite those comments, many of my constituents believe that animal testing is wrong. One lady, who speaks to me regularly, declares that she will refuse drugs because she does not want animals to die so that she can be cured. That is a consistent position, which I respect, although I do not share it. Many others believe that drugs should not be tested on animals, and they protest against the use of animals in tests although they take the drugs that have been developed as a result. I do not condemn that group of people, as long as their protests are peaceful. I believe that everyone has a right to make their opinions known, even if their behaviour is inconsistent. Whatever amendments are made to the Bill, we should ensure the preservation of the right to peaceful protest.
However, the people whom we are discussing are the others; those who use harassment and intimidation to force their views on workers and shareholders at Huntingdon Life Sciences and other scientific research establishments. I should like the Bill to tackle the activities of that group. It is wholly unacceptable for people who work within the law, carrying out work that is required by Government, to be subject to the harassment that they currently suffer.
In this financial year, Cambridge police authority has spent £2.6 million on policing demonstrations by animal rights protesters. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has recently authorised a special payment to Cambridgeshire police and I have received a letter from the chief constable of Cambridgeshire that expresses his gratitude for the extra resources.
I should like to thank the officers of Cambridgeshire police who have been almost unbearably stretched in the past few months. Leave has often had to be cancelled at short notice. The demonstrations have not been easy to police and officers have become involved in ugly incidents as tempers have frayed. Officers have policed those demonstrations extremely well, although many more of them suffer stress and illness as a result of constantly working with insufficient breaks.
At present, the Bill does not offer much protection from the activities of animal rights protesters, so I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intends to introduce amendments to make such activities illegal. For instance, at present, it is not illegal for protesters to demonstrate outside the homes of people whom they decide to target. During the past few weeks, that has happened to some of my constituents. In one case, the protesters believed—mistakenly—that one of the companies of which my constituent is a director is a customer of Huntingdon Life Sciences. That is not true, but even if it were, my constituents should not have to suffer harassment and intimidation in their home.
Not only scientists are being targeted. Protesters have obtained the names and addresses of shareholders in Huntingdon Life Sciences. Last year, a group of members of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection—calling themselves the BUAV reform group—wrote to 1,700 individuals who hold shares in Huntingdon Life Sciences. The letter stated that, from 5 April onwards,

the group would start to hold 24-hour demonstrations outside shareholders' homes unless they sold their shares by 3 April and sent the reform group a copy of the contract note. That is appalling.
As a result, the share price of Huntingdon Life Sciences collapsed. That is one of the reasons why the organisation had so much difficulty in raising the finance to continue. Surely, such practices are wholly unacceptable. People should not be intimidated such that they feel that they have to sell their shares. We need to introduce legislation urgently. The legislation should allow company directors and shareholders to use service addresses to prevent activists from obtaining their home addresses.
It is not only demonstrations outside the homes of scientists and shareholders that cause anxiety. My constituents have suffered from abusive telephone calls, abusive letters, cards, leaflets and graffiti, and posters and stickers on their homes and cars and around the area in which they live. They have also suffered from abusive telephone calls to their relatives, friends and even to their children's schools. Some have been threatened by telephone and letter. A few months ago, cars were fire-bombed in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon.
The law should clearly define what peaceful protest is. It should be an offence to protest in an intimidatory manner. Shouting abuse and veiled threats, such as, "We know where you live", are unacceptable.
I understand that the extremists have turned their attention to some of the large drug companies that use Huntingdon Life Sciences—one of which is Glaxo Wellcome. The world is a large place, and if companies experience harassment and intimidation, they will simply move to another country. I am concerned that those extremist protesters will drive medical research abroad. That is ironic indeed, because we have the best regulated research in the world. Less distress is caused to animals in this country than in any other. If the animal rights protesters are successful in their aims, that will result in more distress—not less—and we in Britain will have lost an extremely valuable facility that is important for human health and for the quality of life.
I conclude by reading a paragraph from a letter from one of my constituents. He writes:
We have the most effective legislation in the world to protect experimental animals from undue suffering. It would be ironic if the animal right groups force UK research to take place in another country where the protection for laboratory animals is not as good as in this country. It would also be an economic disaster for the UK if pharmaceutical and biotech companies move their research abroad as a result of increasing difficulties in pursuing animal research in this country.
I could not agree more.

Mr. Tony Baldry: For a number of years, my father was research secretary of the British Tuberculosis Association. I entirely agree with everything that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) has just said. I hope that one thing that emerges from this debate is the united voice of the House telling some people that the demonstrations and behaviour in which they engage are not acceptable in a mature, democratic society.
That is where my consensus politics finish, however. At the previous general election, Labour candidates in my constituency and in other constituencies went around with


pledge cards—rather like blood donor cards. There were several pledges on the cards, described as early promises. My electors thought that was because they would be delivered early. However, we discovered that it was because they were promises that had been made early in the election campaign.
The promises were pretty modest. The crime promise was not that Labour would increase police numbers or reduce crime, but a modest pledge that it would reduce the time between the arrest and sentencing of young offenders. That pledge—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) scowls, but it was an extremely modest pledge and her party has not managed to deliver it. I suspect that many people in Lincoln and in other constituencies will produce those pledge cards at the next general election and ask why the Labour Government have not delivered that pledge.
The Government realise that as they are approaching a general election they need to be seen to be doing something about crime. This measure is very much a "We are approaching a general election and we need to be seen to be doing something about crime" Bill. I say that because if we consider the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, we would be entitled to describe it as a "We have just been elected and we need to be seen to be doing something about crime" Bill.
The first part of that Act deals with antisocial behaviour orders. I wholly agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) who said that those orders seem to be being used only as a last resort. Since their introduction, they have been used on only two occasions in the whole Thames valley area.
Since the debates on the Queen's Speech, I have done some research on that matter. Everyone tries to blame someone else. Magistrates express their concern that human rights legislation would mean that they could not introduce ASBOs. They say that if the police and local authorities had proposed ASBOs, they would have considered such cases on their merits. The chief constable of the Thames Valley force, Sir Charles Pollard, tells me that the police find the use of ASBOs difficult because of the need
to prove that there is a pattern of behaviour which continues over a period of time and which cannot be dealt with adequately by the prosecution of those concerned for a single one-off incident or criminal act … the above requirement, plus the cumbersome evidential requirements that are inevitable whenever an adversarial judicial process is used to resolve a social problem, mean that ASBOs are not likely to be the preferred option when alternatives exist.
We are entitled to point out to the Government that the 1998 Act is a dead-letter for my constituents—it simply does not work. As the chief constable acknowledges:
in Thames Valley Police area or elsewhere, there remain a significant number of people who have the effect of actively degrading the safety, environment and confidence of the immediate vicinity of where they live. Many but not all of these people are young.
In his speech, the Home Secretary said that the Bill would bear down on yobbish behaviour. However, if legislation already introduced by the Government fails to bear down on such behaviour and is a dead-letter because the police and local authorities are not using it, what hope is there that the provisions in the Bill will be implemented?
I suspect that one reason why the police and local authorities do not use ASBOs is that they have to pay for the orders. The Crown Prosecution Service has no role. If a prosecution is brought for other offences, the CPS has a budget to pay for it. There is still some confusion about who bears the cost of bringing cases involving antisocial behaviour orders before the courts and about who bears the cost if there is an appeal. ASBOs are not being obtained, and the Government are sadly neglecting other aspects of the youth justice system.
This week, I received a letter from the clerk to the Oxfordshire magistrates that makes rather sad reading. She tells me that on 19 January—just 10 days ago—
the magistrates considered an application by Oxfordshire County Council, for an order, in accordance with S25 Children Act 1989, authorising them to keep a fifteen year old boy in Secure Accommodation.
The court was told that the boy, who turned fifteen last November, had been voluntarily accommodated at a local children's home since 8th January. However, as he regularly absconded from the children's home in order to obtain illegal drugs it was feared he would suffer significant harm unless he could be contained.
In addition, the boy was at risk of causing himself serious harm, having, on 16th January, repeatedly run headlong at a wall and later attempted to hang himself using an electric flex.
Information provided to the court confirmed that the boy used a variety of drugs, including heroin which he injected intravenously. As he was known to share needles doctors recommended he urgently needed a medial examination and to be screened for communicable diseases.
In the absence of any authority to restrain the boy he had absconded from the children's home on a daily basis often being returned to the home by the police. More than once he has been found staggering along the street in a distressed state with blood dripping down his arms from intravenous drugs use.
After contacting over fifty residential rehabilitation centres, social workers had identified only one centre in the whole country that was prepared to take a person aged under sixteen. This establishment is in Lincolnshire and will not have a bed available until March 2001.
In the interim period the Oxfordshire County Council sought an order enabling them to hold the boy in Secure Accommodation. This order was granted by the Magistrates who were then horrified to learn that there was currently no bed available in a secure unit anywhere in the country. Social workers therefore had no alternative but to return the boy to the children's home until a bed becomes available.
There is little point in the Government introducing further measures to deal with young people if comparatively recent legislation simply is not working. It is pointless introducing legislation on curfews if no curfew order has yet been implemented. There seems to be no suggestion that local authorities are keen to introduce curfews. Indeed, all the representations that I have received from local authorities state that they have considerable reservations about introducing curfews.
Although some parts of the Bill may well be worth while and commendable, the Government have to accept that there is considerable skepticism—

Mr. Charles Clarke: And cynicism.

Mr. Baldry: There is considerable scepticism and cynicism. People living in the constituencies of hon. Members on both sides of the House are sceptical and cynical about the fact that the Government have been prolific in introducing measures, spinning them and talking about flagship legislation. However, until people


can see things happening on the ground and local residents can see that the tearaways, teenagers and young thugs who daily make their lives a misery are being dealt with, they will believe that all such legislation is simply spin and no substance.

Mrs. Janet Dean: I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the debate. The Bill contains many measures that will be widely welcomed and which many people think are long overdue, such as making kerb crawling and hit-and-run driving arrestable offences. Much has been said about animal rights activities, and it is important to recognise that it is not just the laboratories that have been, and are, under attack by animal rights demonstrators.
There is a guinea-pig farm on the border of my constituency and the activities of animal rights demonstrators has been causing great concern to some of my constituents. I acknowledge that many people sincerely hold the view that there should be no animal experimentation whatever—a point referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). I am sure that we all look forward to the day when such experiments are no longer necessary. It is a fundamental right of citizens to take part in peaceful protests, but it cannot be right that people are terrorised in their own homes.
In my constituency, as in other parts of the country, demonstrators have targeted the homes of those connected with animal rearing and testing establishments. They live in continual fear, and it is not only those who have such connections who are affected—the neighbours of employees, contractors and sometimes whole streets of people have their lives disrupted.
I received a letter from a young father, who said:
Today is Christmas day and I have just spent the last two hours playing outside in the street with my three children on their new bicycles. A nice picture … except for the fact that a dozen Animal Rights protesters joined us and about the same number of Police officers.
My constituent went on to say:
My children demand the protection that I as a father should give. We have the choice to live in a quiet cul de sac and we have the right to freedom of movement. At this moment in time we do not have this.
The farmer and his neighbours suffer from the protesters' actions. During most of last Saturday night, they had to listen to large explosions that took place on their land. Those explosions were not only frightening to humans, but, I suspect, were pretty frightening to guinea-pigs and other animals as well, yet it does not enter the heads of the animal rights protesters that they might be harming the animals that they are protesting about.
I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said that he will consider amending the Bill to try to introduce measures that will give the police the powers so that the lives of people, such as my constituents, will not be blighted by threats, intimidation and fear.
I turn now to other proposals in the Bill. It is right to give the police extra powers to tackle disorder in public places. However, it is important that in proposing to raise the age involved in the child curfew scheme and tackling the yob culture, we remember that we are talking about

measures to tackle a problem caused by a very small minority of young people. It is important to remember that most young people today, and in any generation, are great. They are enthusiastic, caring, law-abiding members of society and, too often, wrongly condemned by some older people. However, today's young people have more pressures on them. The availability on our streets of alcohol and drugs has increased over the years.
I welcome the proposals to tackle under-age drinking, but we need to continue to consider the level of excise duty on alcohol, not only because I represent the capital of brewing, but because of the effect on our young people of the sale of illegally imported alcohol. Most young people are well behaved, and we should listen to them and try to meet their needs, but a small minority cause intolerable disruption. The Bill will give extra powers to the police to address the problems that can wreak havoc on local neighbourhoods.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said, the extension of curfews could help parents to support their children when the parents may be in despair because their offspring will not accept their care and advice. I hope that they will find the backing of curfew orders helpful.
The Bill contains good proposals to make the licensing laws more effective. Several hon. Members have mentioned the crime figures. We sometimes think that violent crime affects only the elderly. They are certainly frightened about the crime statistics, especially when we talk about increases in violent crime. It is important to recognise that most violent crime is perpetrated by one young person, usually male, on another. I hope that the measures to tackle the excessive consumption of alcohol will have an impact on that violent crime.
In supporting the Bill, including the proposals to tidy up and strengthen laws relating to alcohol abuse, I hope that, in the near future, legislation will be introduced to modernise fully our rather antiquated licensing laws.

Mr. Steve Webb: I support the specific provision in the Bill that relates to the handling of DNA samples collected as part of a mass screening inquiry.
I raise this issue because of a constituency case that I brought before the House in an Adjournment debate on 10 March 1999. It was about my constituents, Robert and Gill Smith and their late daughter, Louise. To put it briefly, Louise left home on the Christmas eve of 1995 to go with her friends to a local night club, and she never came back. On Christmas day, her family reported to the police that she had not returned home and a long investigation followed.
There was a mass search for Louise's body and it was eventually found eight weeks later. A DNA sample was taken and the police were faced with the task of trying to match that sample as part of their inquiry. The largest mass screening that had ever been undertaken began and, by the following April, 400 tests had been carried out on local young men. By November, the figure had reached 2,000 and, by the following Easter, it had reached 4,500. Eventually, along with other elements of proof, the DNA match enabled the killer to be identified and he was convicted of this dreadful crime. As the Home Secretary suggested earlier, the DNA was also used to clear the innocent early in the inquiry and to ensure that the police were not diverted down a false avenue.
However, the family were disturbed to learn that those 4,500 samples could not be retained even if those who had given them wanted them to be kept because the police were obliged to destroy the samples. I wish to explain the scale of the effort involved. The samples were collected over 16 months. The estimated cost of collecting and analysing each swab is a little under £40. If we add to that the costs of cameras, film, cool boxes and other items, the whole inquiry involved about £250,000 of police expenditure. It also involved the expenditure of police time and the time of the volunteers who gave the samples and who in most cases would probably not have had any problem if the samples had been retained with their informed consent.
Louise's parents came to me about the issue and they were determined that something positive should emerge out of something so dreadful. They launched a petition with the aid of a local newspaper, The Gazette, and my support, and it was not an easy campaign to run. It is easy to obtain signatures against a proposal to shut a hospital, but it was difficult to explain the complexities of this issue given the intense personal pain that the family felt. They stood out in shopping centres, explaining to passers by why the campaign was necessary, and they accumulated nearly 10,000 signatures on a petition that I presented to the House in March 1999.
The following day I had the Adjournment debate to which I referred earlier and to which the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), responded. He was very generous in giving time to the family that day and they very much appreciated that. He assured us then that legislation would be forthcoming on this issue, and I am pleased to welcome the fact that the promise has been honoured in clause 81.
I have looked at the Bill and the Library's notes on it and would like clarification on one point. When the Home Office consulted on this issue in July 1999, it said:
The police believe that amendment of section 64"—
of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—
to permit the retention of samples, and the DNA profiles derived from samples, for use in future investigations would be mutually beneficial as volunteers would need to approached … on only one occasion.
Such an approach would also be beneficial to the police.
The consultation document added:
The practicalities … would need to be considered but clearly appropriate safeguards would be required to ensure, as a minimum, that samples were indeed being given and retained voluntarily".
That point is covered in the Bill, but the consultation document also refers to the need to ensure that
the right to withdraw consent at any time was available.
That was the Home Office's view in the summer of 1999, and safeguards are valuable in ensuring that the people providing the samples willingly give consent. We want them to provide samples and they are more likely to do that if there are safeguards on the giving of consent. The Home Office rightly said that they would be able to withdraw their consent if, for example, they feel uncertain about the use of the sample or another reason.
People who are told that, if they give a sample they will never be able to revoke their consent, are less likely to consent in the first place. We want them to consent,

so I agree with the position that the Home Office took in July 1999. However, clause 81 suggests that consent, once given, can never be revoked. When the Minister sums up, will he comment on why there has been that change in approach?
I do not want to detract from the warm welcome that I give to the fact that the Government have introduced the specific provision to deal with DNA samples and mass screening in which consent can be voluntarily given. I welcome the fact that the Government have honoured their promise to introduce such a change in the law.

Miss Geraldine Smith: Over the past three and a half years, the Government and the police working together have undoubtedly had a considerable measure of success in bringing about significant reductions in those crimes that affect ordinary people most—domestic burglary and car crime. Domestic burglary has fallen by 28 per cent. since the general election, and car crime by 20 per cent. In my constituency, the reductions in the levels of these crimes have been far more impressive, and are well above the national average. I therefore place on record my sincere thanks to Chief Superintendent Stuart Kirby for the superb job that he and his officers do in tackling crime throughout the Morecambe and Lancaster area.
Despite the fact that overall crime has fallen by 7 per cent. nationally since 1997, crime, the fear of crime and violence and disorderly conduct remain a matter of grave concern to me and many of my constituents. I therefore welcome many of the measures in the Bill, because they provide the police with an additional range of tools that will greatly assist them in carrying out their extremely difficult and dangerous task of protecting the public from criminal activity and bringing those who transgress the law to justice.
The introduction of fixed-penalty notices for offences, such as drunken and disorderly behaviour, will provide an imaginative option for the police to deal more effectively with the yobbish behaviour that pervades our towns and cities particularly at the weekends and on Saturday night. The further measures to combat alcohol-related disorder are also most welcome. The ability of the police immediately to close down disorderly licensed premises will prove a potent weapon in dealing with those establishments that are notorious for violent, drunken and loutish behaviour.
The measures that will allow local authorities to prevent the consumption of alcohol in inappropriate public places will certainly receive widespread public support in my constituency, where we faced a problem with drinking in public places. It took about seven years to introduce a byelaw to stop it happening. These measures will speed things up and will enable action to be taken more quickly. I also welcome the toughening up of the law relating to the sale of alcohol to young people under the age of 18.
Further measures to combat crime in this wide-ranging Bill—such as the travel restrictions on drugs traffickers, the measures to prevent the intimidation of witnesses, child curfew schemes, the police's additional powers of seizure, new powers of arrest and detention and the new procedures relating to the taking and retention of DNA samples and fingerprints—all have the common aim of


strengthening the position of the police and other law-enforcement agencies in their continual battle against crime. As such, they should be welcomed by both sides of the House.
However, the full potential of the measures in the Bill will undoubtedly not be realised unless they are accompanied by substantial increases in police numbers.
The public's confidence in the ability of the police to win the war against crime will not be restored until the police are able to provide a regular, high profile and visible presence on the streets of our towns and cities, particularly in the evenings and at night. There is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority in my constituency feel it essential to have more police on the beat. I make no apology to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench for saying that I entirely support that view.
Having said that, unlike Conservative Members, who try to give the impression that everything on law and order was fine when they were in power, I do not seek to lay blame on this Government for the situation that they inherited from their predecessors. It is a fact that, in common with the rest of our public services, the police suffered underinvestment under the Tories, and as a result police numbers have steadily declined since 1993.

Mr. Heald: I am sure that the hon. Lady would not want to give a false impression. Surely she is aware that the number of constables on the beat—the people about whom she is concerned—went up every year under the Conservatives. Police numbers rose by 15,000.

Miss Smith: One can say many things with statistics. This Government are committed to additional funding over the next three years—huge Home Office spending. Will the hon. Gentleman intervene to tell me whether his party will match that spending if elected?

Mr. Heald: We have made it perfectly clear that one would have to be a fool to think that the Conservatives would not match the sort of budget that the Labour party has set.

Miss Smith: I am not quite sure whether that was a yes or a no.
If, when they came to power, the Government had been faced only with finding additional resources to fund extra police, I would have demanded that it be made available immediately. However, as all Labour Members know, as do the public, when the Conservatives left office in 1997, virtually all our public services were in crisis and the national debt was spiralling out of control. Such was the Tory legacy. In case Conservative Members should delude themselves that people have forgotten their miserable record on public services, let me assure them that they have not. If any should do so, we shall certainly remind them. Given such a background, the Government's tardiness in dealing with the issue of police numbers is, if not acceptable, at least clearly understandable.
Virtually everyone agrees that those who commit crimes should be caught, convicted and punished appropriately, but what people really want is not to be a victim of crime in the first place. Extra police on the streets can play a vital part in a cohesive crime prevention strategy. Apart from the physical deterrent of a visible

police presence, the intelligence gleaned by police patrolling on foot cannot be replicated by officers sitting in vehicles patrolling huge areas.
Even if accompanied by a substantial increase in the number of police on the beat, the measures in the Bill are by no means all that needs to be done to address criminal behaviour. The link between criminal activity and high unemployment, deprivation and social exclusion is now almost universally accepted. Although such behaviour can never be condoned, it does not take too much stretching of the imagination to understand how people living in areas suffering from such problems can be drawn into a life of crime.
I am well aware that tackling social exclusion is at the centre of the Government's social policy and that successful delivery of it will make the biggest single contribution to crime prevention. However, there is still a long way to go. In the meantime, areas of severe social deprivation will benefit most from high profile policing. That point was made time and again at recent public meetings that I held in the west end of Morecambe and in Heysham. Although local police have undertaken to do as much as they can to raise their profile in such areas, limited resources will restrict their achievements.
One other point that came from those public meetings was concern about the small number of antisocial behaviour orders issued to date. Although antisocial behaviour is a real problem in my constituency, only one such order has been issued. There appears to be a reluctance and lack of enthusiasm in the police and on the local council to pursue that course of action. They say that it is because of the time and resources required to collect the evidence. I am well aware that that is not unique to my constituency; indeed, many Members have mentioned it in the debate. What measures are in place to audit the operation of antisocial behaviour orders legislation, and what remedial action can be taken if it is not properly applied?
For far too long, the quality of life of many has been wrecked by the fear of crime, especially of violent crime. They have become virtual prisoners in their own homes because they feel that it is no longer safe for them to walk the streets, visit their friends, use public transport or undertake a whole host of other activities that would constitute a normal life.
I quote as an example one of my constituents, Mr. Kenneth Appleby, who came to see me about the serious problems with antisocial behaviour in the Kingsway area of Heysham. He has been the victim of repeated attacks of extreme vandalism, believed to be by children. His car was covered in black paint on two occasions, even when it was on his drive and the gate was locked—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.

Mr. James Clappison: I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate. I should like to follow the path of responsible opposition taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) in welcoming some of the Bill's provisions, subject to appropriate scrutiny. Such a course was not always taken by the then Opposition prior to 1997, but is appropriate for a criminal justice Bill containing a variety of measures.
In my comments on the generality of the Government's policies on law and order, I would not want to be taken as opposing some of the individual measures which deserve a fair wind, subject to appropriate scrutiny. I am thinking of two provisions. The provisions relating to DNA could be an important step in assisting the administration of justice, making it more efficient, and in helping the police investigate crime and the courts avoid miscarriages of justice. They will also help in cases such as the tragic one of Louise Smith, properly raised by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb).
The Government's provisions on animal rights protests also deserve a fair wind. Indeed, to go a little further, I very much endorse the Home Secretary's approach on the matter. He was clearly speaking for Members on both sides of the House in taking such a robust approach. People who are engaged in research on animals are doing very important work. They deserve recognition for the importance of their work and certainly deserve the full protection of the law. I should like to add one more point to those already made in the debate.
Besides the illegal protests, threats and intimidation, we have seen in the name of the animal rights protest in recent times some serious and horrific acts of violence against innocent members of the public. That was brought home to me some weeks ago when, in the village where I grew up, a member of a well-known local family who was working as a secretary in an estate agents' office opened a parcel only to find it explode in her face, damaging one of her eyes. I know that that was a terrible experience for that lady. It must be deprecated. The full weight and force of law and order must be brought against those who participate in criminal offences of that general character, so I shall give a fair wind to anything that helps to deal with such problems.
I now turn to more controversial matters—in particular, child curfew orders. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald was good enough to mention the amendment that I tabled to the Crime and Disorder Bill two years ago which would have extended the age range up to 16. The amendment was rejected out of hand by the Government. I am pleased, however, that the Government have now adopted the proposal. I am slightly surprised because, notwithstanding the Government's attitude originally, in recent weeks and months I have seen the proposal being trailed as the centrepiece of the Government's legislative programme and one of the flagship measures in the Queen's Speech. It has been trailed across newspaper front pages as one of the Government's principal so-called solutions for the problem of low-level disorder.
I am surprised that the Government have placed such weight on the proposal, but perhaps the change was inevitable. The success of the order in its original form—it was restricted to children of up to 10 years of age—was not entirely self-evident because no such order was made. In addition, the number of antisocial behaviour orders made was pitifully small. Against that background, the Government tried initially to argue that the number of orders made was not the measure of success. Instead, they tried to argue that the orders were a success because knowledge of their existence deterred youngsters from taking part in the activities that the orders were directed against. That assumes a knowledge of the law and a

degree of sophistication that is beyond most under-10s. I am pleased that the Government have abandoned that line of argument.
The Government are still clinging to antisocial behaviour orders. These orders were the flagship of the Government's Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In their original form, the child curfew orders were only the supporting act. The star turn was the antisocial behaviour order. It was trailed by the Labour party when in opposition and it was included in amendments to Bills. It was highlighted as being the linchpin of the "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" campaign. It led to many visits by Ministers to inner-city risk estates and to the launching of many press releases and initiatives. It was to be the answer to disorder.
The order may have been the flagship, but it was beached long ago. There have been numerous attempts to relaunch it, none of which has been successful. At first, the Government tried to argue that antisocial behaviour orders had been successful. When so few were made, the Government began to try to find someone to blame. By implication, the Government tried to blame magistrates. When it became apparent that magistrates were not imposing the orders because so few applications for them were being made, by implication the Government tried to blame the police and local authorities.
The Home Secretary even tried to blame civil liberties lawyers, one of his favourite targets. The right hon. Gentleman should be careful in that direction. There is no evidence that they have had anything to do with the failure of antisocial behaviour orders. The Minister of State, who has taken his place on the Government Front Bench, even tried to blame the Opposition. He said that we should not have opposed the orders in Committee. He missed the simple point that the Opposition did not oppose them. We simply said that they would not be of much use. That has not been entirely disproved.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): If the hon. Gentleman considers that antisocial behaviour orders are full of problems and to be deprecated, is he looking to a future Conservative Government to repeal them?

Mr. Clappison: It is pathetic that Ministers rely on such an argument. As far as I am aware, no one has said that a future Conservative Government, which I hope will come about, will repeal the orders. Ministers must face the fact—the Home Secretary made the point—that the orders have not lived up to expectations. Will the Minister say that about 150 antisocial behaviour orders—if that is the number—over two years have delivered on Labour's promises to tackle disorder in our inner cities? Does he think that all the disorder is being caused by 150 individuals? If so, that is pathetic.
We have a small foretaste of the Government's re-election campaign. Their orders have failed and the Government have failed to give people what they were led to believe they would get. The Government have now made a last-ditch attempt to blame the Conservative party.
Once again, law and order is being taken from the top shelf, dusted down and put in front of the electorate. It is an ingredient of the Government's failed campaign. We know that an election is coming when we hear the Government start to talk about the yob culture. There can


be no more convincing evidence that the Government's policies over three and a half to four years have failed to deliver what the people were led to believe they would get, which was decent law and order. They are now trying to cover up for their failures. Given the way in which it has been presented, the Bill is the most cogent and compelling admission of the Government's failure. They deserve to get a kick up the backside from the voters for their failure, and they will.

Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for inviting me to make a brief contribution to this important debate. I declare an interest: I am a barrister.
The Bill is a substantial measure. It contains 132 clauses and it is divided into seven parts, one of which is divided into three chapters. I shall be brief because I wish to speak on only one of those chapters, which relates to alcohol-related crime. I shall do so because of the crime figures in my constituency, which includes Wellingborough and Rushden.
Over the past few years we have heard from some Opposition Members that crime has risen, but it has not risen in my constituency. Indeed, it has fallen year on year since the election. In the past year it has fallen by 5 per cent. overall. There has been a fall in auto-crime of more than 12 per cent. The fall in burglaries has been nearly 22 per cent. In target areas, where Home Office money has been invested in certain estates, there has been a fall in crime of about 25 per cent.
Some hon. Members have traded their local evening newspaper headlines. There have been headlines in my constituency. On 12 January, there was a report headed "Dramatic Drop in Burglaries". That was a drop in the Christmas month 1999 to 2000 of 50 per cent., and there has been a drop of 62 per cent. over the past two years. There is a fall not only in burglaries but in violent crime. At the end of last year, there was a month-on-month reduction of 31 per cent.
Crime is falling and police numbers are increasing. Nearly 50 new full-time officers joined the Northampton-shire police force during the six months between April and September last year. These facts and figures are causes of considerable celebration, but not complacency. Although the figures overall are good, there are disturbing trends within them.
Violent crimes in licensed premises rose from 51 in 1999 to 71 in 2000, which is a rise of 40 per cent. I understand that we may be getting off lightly in Wellingborough. It appears that about 13,000 violent incidents take place in or near licensed premises every week. More than 30 per cent. of violent attacks that involve strangers occur in or near pubs and clubs. That means people being bottled or glassed, hit with pool cues, knifed, headbutted, kicked or stamped on. People are attacked inside pubs when they are having a drink or attacked outside when they are trying to go home.
If we are to be tough on crime and on the causes of crime, we must tackle more than poverty, drug addiction, homelessness and helplessness, the areas in which crime breeds. We must be tough on alcohol abuse as well. This abuse makes its criminal manifestations known in many forms. There is drink-driving, domestic violence, being drunk and disorderly and drunk and incapable in public.

In Wellingborough, these events take place outside the pubs and between the pubs and on the streets as people walk to clubs.
We have developed anti-crime orders and strategies; we have consulted and there has been a full household survey; and we know what people in Wellingborough fear most about alcohol-related crime. They are concerned about the rising crime that takes place outside licensed premises. They are concerned especially about youngsters who drink too much. They are concerned most of all about kicking-out time, when dozens of youngsters spill into the streets at the same time, often intent on walking to the same night club.
Are the measures included in the chapter designed to curb drinking, youthful drinking and violent crime induced by alcohol going to work? One has only to note the particular concern in my constituency to realise an inherent irony. We are concerned about licensed premises, and such concern means that a system of control and regulation should already be in place. If licensing already exists, one should have a system that works to prevent violent crime from arising. Manifestly, however, that has not been the case: violent crime is endemic throughout the country and is focused on areas outside pubs and clubs.
I shall look at a few practical problems and see whether the measures in the Bill will address them. I shall deal with just four features of alcohol-influenced violence: first, the pressures from breweries to sell more alcohol; secondly, under-age drinkers; thirdly, door-to-door management of pubs and clubs; and, finally, licensing hours.
I shall start with the breweries, not because I want to take on big business but simply because huge pressure is placed on pub managers to sell more alcohol. There is nothing surprising about that; that is the job of breweries. They raise targets year on year. The bonuses of pub managers are linked to those targets and when managers fail to meet targets, breweries immediately suggest that they undertake promotions. Those promotions always focus on youngsters and, increasingly, on high-percentage spirits.
A pub manager may not want to follow those promotions because he does not want to deal with the resulting drunkenness but, with no viable alternative and with bonuses at stake, the pressure can become irresistible. One then has happy hours, alcopops and the promotion of shots, such as Aftershocks in red or blue, and the pornography, in my view, of adverts offering two double vodkas and a Red Bull at a cut price—which is four shots in one go. Inevitably, all of that encourages binge drinking, especially by youngsters.
That leads me on to the second feature that I mentioned—the risks of alcohol-influenced violent crime are surely exacerbated if there are inadequate controls on under-age drinking. I am not seeking to take any high moral ground. Like, I suspect, most people in this country, when I was 15 or 16 I thought that it was a positive challenge to try to get served in pubs. With the maturity of hindsight, I can say that if that remains the reality for youth today, if advertisements put pressure on young people to buy more high-alcohol spirits, and if pressure is put on pub managers to sell those drinks, it is essential that we take sensible measures to try to restrict the potentially adverse consequences.
That leads me to the third factor, for one such measure would be to tackle the problem of door-to-door pub management. We need more than bar management to try to stop someone selling alcohol to people who are getting drunk or are already drunk. We need more than door management to kick them out or stop them coming in if they are drunk. We need door-to-door management to alert neighbouring pubs and clubs to the problem of a drunk customer who is about to arrive. If there is one bad publican in a high street, all the other publicans there can suffer, as drunks then turn up at their public houses, making drink-related violence real and obvious.
Finally, those risks are exacerbated by the current licensing hours. Last orders are uniformly at 11 pm and drinking up takes place at 11.20 pm. Large numbers of youngsters are therefore all deposited in the street at the same time, often intent on going to the same club. Many of them will have sunk the last few rounds as quickly as possible to make sure that they downed them before closing time.
There is a fairly potent cocktail of problems. There are four features of drink-related activity outside licensed premises that need to be addressed. We need to see action on brewery promotions, under-age drinking, door-to-door management and out-of-date, poorly thought out licensing hours. The question is whether the Bill, in its relevant chapter, deals with those factors. I have come to the conclusion that it does so in part and after a fashion. It does so only in part because it does not contain any provisions on licensing hours, on which reform is now long overdue, and because it does not say anything about the compulsory use of proof-of-age cards. The proof-of-age scheme promoted by the council in my constituency did not meet with the marked approval of many of those selling alcohol.
The Bill deals with those factors after a fashion because the tool that we are using to close down disorderly pubs—although welcomed by the police in my constituency—is blunt and indirect. It puts pressure on the publican, but does not target minds, as it should in my view, or the breweries or the specific problem of door-to-door management.
Those on the Front Bench are routinely challenged at Question Time about who is responsible for crime. Criminals are responsible for crime. In this case, it is drunken thugs. Crime is not the responsibility of Government, nor indeed is it their responsibility to do everything they can to prevent it. We live in a free world and sometimes the price of freedom is exposing ourselves to the risk of criminal activity. There is always a balance of liberty against justice and victims' rights, but liberty is not so important as to allow people to be drunk and then be violent, nor to sell alcohol to those who are drunk and may become violent. The liberty of us all is the ability to go to the pub and drink in peace.

Mrs. Helen Brinton: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate, as I believe that the Bill offers a package of measures that will help the police and others to deal effectively with a range of disorderly and criminal behaviour. In doing so, it builds on the excellent Crime and Disorder Act 1998 pioneered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael).
According to the British crime survey, crime has gone down by 10 per cent. by since 1997; recorded crime, which is based on police figures, has gone down by 7 per cent. The Bill gives the police further powers to build on that very good start. The Government are committed to reducing and preventing crime; part of the strategy for doing that is to support the police, who are at the front line in grappling with crime. While being far from expert in the field, I have certainly gained more personal insight into the problems confronting police forces through my participation in the past year in the excellent police parliamentary scheme. I have discussed the Bill with the police and, in particular, with my own force in Cambridgeshire.
Tonight, however, I shall voice more of a constituency concern. For some time, I have been extremely concerned about the level and nature of protests by animal rights activists against employees and others associated with Huntingdon Life Sciences. I am not alone in that. I am proud that five Cambridgeshire MPs on both sides of the House have expressed their concern tonight—as I am doing—and have written to the Home Secretary. They are pleased to welcome the extra resources that the Government are providing.
Huntingdon Life Sciences is not in my constituency, but I am none the less concerned. We have already heard excellent speeches on the topic, notably from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). However, the most outstanding speech was given by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major).
I speak on behalf of those in my constituency of Peterborough who work for or have connections with HLS. Like the right hon. Member for Huntingdon, I believe that the Bill as drafted does not go far enough to protect my constituents and his. Over the past three years, individuals, including my constituents, have suffered a horrifying range and number of illegal—I believe—tactics used by animal rights extremists. I use that word advisedly. I shall give the House a selection of complaints and abuses in relation to which my constituents have e-mailed and spoken to me and have come to visit me in my surgery. It is a long list, and I shall read only part of it.
The list includes demonstrations outside people's homes; verbal abuse using a loudhailer outside the home or workplace; goods and services ordered in an employee's name, and hoax free advertisements placed, resulting in one person receiving 50 response calls in one day; abusive graffiti, posters and stickers on people's homes and cars and in the area where they live; abusive telephone calls to relatives, friends and children's schools—the lowest of the low, in my view; telephone calls threatening to kill or injure the employee, partner or children; and letters making similar threats. It makes people feel dirty and contaminated even to touch such writing paper.
The list continues, with arrangements for the undertaker to call to collect the employee's body or the body of a child or partner; physical assaults on employees and their partners, including spraying cleaning fluid into the eyes; the smashing of all the windows in a person's home while the family was at home watching television; sledgehammer attacks to a car when the owner was in it; the fire-bombing of a car parked next to a house; the fire-bombing of sheds and garages; bomb hoaxes; and nail bombs in the post.
Most people would say that all those acts were criminal, but at present not all of them are. Some of them fall within the current definition of peaceful protest. My constituents do not understand that. I would be the first to defend the right to peaceful protest, but there is a world of difference between what most civilised, ordinary people understand by the term "peaceful protest" and the vile, evil acts of aggression and intimidation that I have listed.
People living in a democracy, as we should be grateful that we do, have a right to expect protection from such acts. Our police must have the powers to provide that protection. The House must examine how the law can more clearly define peaceful protest, and we must make it an offence to protest in an overtly threatening manner.
Finally, I shall comment briefly on what some have called secondary targeting—the targeting by activists not only of direct employees of HLS and their families but of HLS's suppliers, customers, shareholders and company directors at their homes. I understand that the Bill may not be the best vehicle for all the changes that may be necessary, and that amendment of existing legislation may be more appropriate.
However, we must act urgently to restrict access to the addresses of such groups, and secondary targeting should be an offence. Surely it is unacceptable that, as has happened, electricians should feel compelled to cancel their work for a targeted firm, or cleaners should feel personally threatened if they continue with their honourable day-to-day work at the firm. Of course, it is another matter if they choose to dissociate themselves from the targeted firm, but that must be their free choice and action, and it must be protected.
I welcome the introduction of the Bill, and I trust that in Committee these issues and others will duly receive careful cross-party consideration. That would be the best approach. I know that serious concerns have been expressed by civil liberties and human rights organisations about individual freedoms and rights, which we will debate at a later stage. Such concerns should not be used to legitimise the serious infringement of liberty or the harassment and the intimidation which I—and, I am glad to say, others—have described in our debate.

Mr. John Grogan: I shall follow the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), whose powerful speech concentrated on alcohol-related violence and crime and the parts of the Bill dealing with that scourge and blight on so many of our communities.
In particular, I shall consider the practical implementation of clause 32, which deals with sales of alcohol to those who are under age. The explanatory notes are instructive about the meaning of the clause, which increases the responsibility of all licence holders, whether they be on-licence holders or off-licence holders, to seek proof of age. The notes state:
The defendant will be deemed to have taken 'all reasonable steps' if he asked the customer for evidence of his age.
They continue:
The intention is to ensure that licensees and their staff seek proof of age before making sales.
I want to examine how we can make that process of seeking proof of age as smooth and as routine as possible. Only if that is achieved will the Bill work in practice.
Many of the alcohol crime measures contained in the Bill were previewed in the White Paper on liquor licensing reform. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough rightly said that we must not forget the other measures proposed in that White Paper. In particular, flexibility of licensing hours was designed as an anti-crime measure. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) about the kebab shops that grace his constituency. He told us about one street in particular. I would almost bet that his local police will tell him that any violence outside the kebab shops occurs at closing time for the pubs or clubs. I hope that, before long—and certainly before the Bill completes its passage—my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will report to the House on the consultation undertaken by the Government on the White Paper on liquor licensing reform and again commit them to implementing its broad principles.
I am a member of the all-party beer group and am currently a member of a panel that is taking evidence on proof-of-age cards and their practical implementation. The country currently has three schemes: the validate scheme, which is especially prevalent in the north of England and Scotland; the citizen card scheme, which is backed by the retail industry; and the "Prove It" card, which is backed by the Portman group. As was pointed out in the validate scheme evidence, use of the cards applies not only to alcohol, as age restrictions apply to a range of products.
The all-party beer group has received evidence from more than 15 organisations, ranging from the Association of Chief Police Officers to the Association of Convenience Stores. Common to the evidence is a concern about the difficulties associated with a plethora of schemes that work to different standards. The Association of Chief Police Officers perhaps put that view most cogently. It stated:
This lack of a consistent standard across the country makes it difficult to train staff as to what to look out for. It also makes it comparatively easy to produce forged cards thus undermining the value of the scheme.
ACPO went on to state:
The mere fact that there are so many different methods in use … detracts from their usefulness as a reliable tool.
The Association of Convenience Stores pointed out that routine requests for proof of age would be a big cultural change for retailers and publicans, and that, unlike America, Britain has no culture of proving age. ACS argued that requests for identification in this country sometimes cause offence and can lead to staff intimidation. The Portman group commented on the voluntary schemes that are currently in operation and referred to a survey in which 59 per cent. of managers said that they had suffered verbal abuse as a consequence of asking for proof of age. Of the managers questioned, 52 per cent. said that they had suffered shoplifting as a result of having made such requests.
We must do more to help retailers, publicans and youngsters themselves. The British Retail Consortium pointed out that if a scheme is especially strong in one area, youngsters who travel away from that area may find that their card becomes useless and is no longer recognised. Such factors could demotivate young people who are considering whether to apply for a card.
No one is asking the Government to introduce a national identity card, but people are asking them to use their influence to try to bring some coherence to


arrangements in respect of proof of age. The Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers accepts that the Government might be reluctant to endorse a single commercial venture, but believes that they could set out criteria against which schemes can be judged. The ALMR states:
This should include the geographic and age-related coverage of the scheme. Ideally, ALMR would wish to see a national scheme that adopts an integrated approach to proof of age and is not simply restricted to the age of 18. Other criteria would include anti-forgery measures, including a secure photo and date of birth. Effective schemes could be granted a Government kite-mark or badge of approval.
The attitude of young people to proof-of-age cards is interesting. No opinion survey has been conducted recently, but the qualitative and anecdotal evidence suggests that such cards are popular among young people. The Local Government Association says that experience among local authorities
supports the view that the majority of young people would welcome the introduction of a national proof of age scheme.
It goes on to say:
The marketing of the scheme would be vital to its success, however it is possible to make the card an 'attractive' item for the individual to carry thus it becomes a 'must have' item for every young person.
The National Union of Students did not come out against a more national, coherent approach to proof-of-age cards, but merely asked to be involved in consultations. It pointed out that the cost of introduction for individuals could be a factor in how uniform the system was, and said that reassurances must be given on the data and information held on the card.
It is useful to look at the United States experience. During his first term, President Clinton firmly associated his office with the campaign to cut down under-age drinking. There was a significant marketing campaign, with posters in bars saying, "No ID, No Sale". That helped retailers, publicans and bar owners in the United States because it reinforced the culture of asking for a card. It also helped youngsters realise the importance of carrying the card.

Mr. Heald: When the Licensing (Young Persons) Bill was going through the House, the Minister suggested that the Department for Education and Employment card, Connexions, could be used as a national proof-of-age card. Does the hon. Gentleman have any further views on that?

Mr. Grogan: The hon. Gentleman gives me a perfect cue. We are now at a crucial stage of deciding whether to adopt the Connexions card. My understanding is that in the pilot scheme in Merseyside, there was provision for a proof-of-age element to be included on one side of the Connexions card. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can confirm that we are down to the last two tenderers for the Connexions card and that the decision will be made in March. At least one tenderer intends to incorporate a proof-of-age element in its card. Clearly, if the Connexions card is to be used for proof of age, a disadvantage is that it was intended to provide it only to those in full-time education over the age of 16. However, at least one of the tenderers sees no reason why a

proof-of-age element could not be made available to all youngsters. Indeed, the proof-of-age logo could be common throughout the United Kingdom. A problem with the Connexions card, if used for this purpose, is that it is available only in England.
If we are to make this a responsibility that licensees and retailers can exercise effectively, we need to do more to help them—whether by public education, providing leadership or co-ordinating the various cards.
I have two further comments on other aspects of the Bill. I welcome the statutory force given for the first time to test-purchasing, which was pioneered by North Yorkshire police and is now used not only by police but by many pub companies as a method of improving standards and employee practice. That is greatly to be welcomed.
It is important to recognise that, under the Bill, the closure of pubs would take place only when there was a risk of public disorder. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) referred to the sounds and smells of a new year's eve party in her constituency. Unless there was a threat to public order, the Bill would not—quite rightly—lead to the closure of that pub as a temporary measure. The answer to her constituents' problems is the complete reform of the licensing laws and the introduction of a premises licence which specifies what activities should go on in a pub at any time.
I hope that we never reach the stage where publicans of well run pubs are frightened to call the police because they fear that their pub will be closed down. Many senior police officers see this as essentially a reserve power to deal with badly run pubs. The best way of ensuring that our pubs and bars are well run is a close partnership, such as the many pub-watch schemes involving police and licensees up and down the land.

Siobhain McDonagh: Any Bill to reduce crime is to be welcomed. Any Bill that tackles head on the burgeoning yob culture prevalent in so many parts of society will be warmly greeted by our constituents.
I, too, welcome all the measures in the Bill, but I think that the Government have missed an opportunity to tackle a serious antisocial offence. I offer one or two suggestions as to how to improve the legislation to make it even more effective in the war against crime.
During the debate on the Gracious Speech, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said:
Three years ago, evidence was produced showing that, unfortunately, compared with otherwise similar low-income estates, disorderly estates on which there were higher levels of graffiti and litter and a greater sense of abuse had higher crime levels. If we nip lower-level offending in the bud, we can stop offending entirely."—[Official Report, 12 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 518.]
I could not agree more. That is why I find it disappointing that the Government have not taken the opportunity afforded by the Bill to tackle one of the prime causes of our graffiti-ridden neighbourhoods: the easy availability of spray paints.
Graffiti is a blight on even the best neighbourhoods, and costs councils a fortune to clean up. The London borough of Merton, in my constituency, calculated that if it were to clear up every piece of graffiti tomorrow,


it would cost £60,000—enough money to employ two extra teachers. Furthermore, as we all know, the graffiti would re-appear within days and the expense of the clear-up would be money down the drain.
We often talk about crime in terms of vast statistics, and the media focus is on extreme cases such as murder, which is, thankfully, relatively rare. However, the experience of crime for the vast majority of ordinary people—our constituents—is having their garage doors sprayed with idiotic slogans, or their lifts vandalised and defaced. Just as importantly, graffiti has an impact on the fear of crime, which is out of all proportion to actual crime levels. If an otherwise safe and decent area experiences a wave of graffiti-writing, people begin to feel unsafe.
The Bill seeks to crack down on the sale of alcohol to children, and we all agree with that. I wonder whether the Government might consider tabling an amendment in Committee to extend the prohibition to the sale of spray paints to minors. My local police inspector reckons that the average age of graffiti writers is between 12 and 14. I can think of only one reason why a 12-year-old would want to buy a can of spray paint: to create graffiti. An unpleasant side effect of the use of spray paint is that the cans are frequently used by teenagers to gain the same effect as drugs, only more quickly and much more cheaply.
Making the acquisition of spray paint more difficult would certainly result in an immediate and dramatic decrease in instances of graffiti. As has been pointed out, that would lead to a fall in other crimes as well. I referred to the acquisition of spray paints, because many of the cans used to create graffiti have been stolen. We should try to make the sale of spray paint to minors illegal, and shops should be required to store cans of spray paint in secure areas, as they currently do with fireworks.
That provision could be extended to the sale of indelible marker pens, which are also used to disfigure and vandalise property. I never thought that I would say such a thing in the House of Commons, but I have received extensive lobbying on the issue from the chief inspector of my local police force and by councillors and council officers. Such a step would be drastic, and would have connotations of the nanny state, but something needs to be done to stamp on this problem, which is getting worse, and is not peculiar to my constituency.
I would go further, and suggest that we introduce a 10:1 ratio for fines involving graffiti. In other words, if it cost a council £100 to clean up someone's mess, that person should be fined £1,000, and so on. That would certainly have a shock effect. My hon. Friend the Minister might point out that steps to tackle the problem can be taken by means of council byelaws, and he would be right. My borough is actively considering taking action in that way, in partnership with the local police. Examples of good practice by responsible retailers already exist. However, byelaws are not enough. There would be little point in making the acquisition of spray paints difficult in one borough, if all an enterprising graffiti artist had to do was hop on the bus to the next borough to buy some.
The Bill seeks to extend certain schemes that were initiated through byelaws, and the Government could take this opportunity to send a clear signal that they are declaring war on graffiti. My constituents—and, no doubt, those of the Minister—would warmly welcome such a

declaration. If, for whatever reason, it proves impossible to amend the Bill, will the Minister at least undertake to consider the matter with a view to future legislation?
This is a good Bill that will have a positive impact on crime reduction. If the Government could incorporate some tough action on graffiti, it would be even better.

Mr. Tim Collins: I begin on a note of some consensus. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on an excellent speech, full of constructive ideas. I hope that the Minister will have time to reflect on a number of them and will respond—although not tonight, perhaps—not just to the hon. Lady, but to the House in general. A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that her suggestions have much to commend them. As she pointed out, the problem of graffiti is not confined to her borough or her area.
Also in the spirit of consensus, let me say that my constituency neighbour—the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) who, sadly, is not in her place—was correct to say that crime is a problem in the north-west of England. She rightly identified instances of crime increasing and said also that the problems did not begin in 1997, although I think that she was trying to be controversial, as no Conservative Member has ever pretended that Britain was without crime in 1997. Of course it was not; Britain certainly had problems with crime then.
I differ with Labour Members over their belief that the answer to Britain's crime problems somehow lies in providing the police with additional powers rather than additional numbers. The police's principal difficulty is not a lack of legislation, which they could study, be trained in and implement, but the lack of numbers to cope with the legislation and powers that Parliament has already given them.

Helen Jones: May I put to the hon. Gentleman a constituency case involving an elderly gentleman? He has been tormented constantly by gangs of youths fuelled by alcohol. The police know who the youths are and are aware of what is going on, but under current legislation, they lack the power to take swift action. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the Bill is useless, what has he to say to that elderly gentleman?

Mr. Collins: The hon. Lady perhaps ought to make a point to her elderly constituent—one that he probably believes anyway. He will undoubtedly remember a time in this country which is well within the memory of many people, not just the elderly, when all the disorder problems to which she referred—not least drunkenness and disorderliness—were substantially less than they are today. A reason for that was that police numbers were greater and the restraints under which they operated were fewer. An important way in which the House can assist the police to provide the underpinnings for a law-abiding society is to provide the resources and the help to enable the police to get back on the streets. That is one of the best ways to tackle the range of problems that she mentioned.

Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that most offences of the sort to which the hon. Member for


Warrington, North (Helen Jones) referred are arrestable? If the police know who those people are, they can arrest them and take them to court. Is not the problem the fact that there simply are not enough police to do so? Perhaps he read the story in the Yorkshire Post last week about an elderly gentleman who has to ring the police so often that he has arranged a cheap deal with BT so that he can do so at a discount.

Mr. Collins: My hon. Friend is right. That service, which provides for a customer's top 10 numbers, is called "friends and family". Sadly, such examples occur all too often.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made clear, we do not oppose any and every aspect of the Bill. There are proposals that Conservatives will be able to support following due consideration, but Labour Members should not kid themselves. People who voted for them thought that their platform of being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime would result in more police, not fewer, and tougher action on crime. Unfortunately, there has been tougher action on the crimefighters instead.
For example, in my area, Cumbria constabulary has done an excellent job in many respects. It has managed to produce reductions in several of the crime statistics and has coped with a great difficulty relating to the way in which it is funded. That difficulty is caused by the failure of the police funding formula to take enough account of the huge number of visitors to the lake district. The area covered by my constituency and those surrounding it is the most visited part of the United Kingdom, after Greater London, but that is rarely if ever taken into account.
Police numbers have fallen by some 5 per cent. in Cumbria since this Government came to power. The chief constable has repeatedly appealed to Ministers to address the issue of underfunding, and in particular to consider including a full and permanent sparsity factor in the allocation of Home Office grant. I am glad that some months ago the Minister of State was able to announce a one-off, temporary half-provision of sparsity funding; that was a great deal better than nothing. It was not, however, the same as a permanent allocation on which the chief constable could rely. It provided only about half the resources that he wanted.

Mr. Charles Clarke: rose—

Mr. Collins: The Minister clearly wishes to intervene.

Mr. Clarke: Just for the record. I would not normally have intervened on such a specious contribution, but the fact is that the rural funding we have announced will last for three and a half years. It is substantial funding: the total provided nationally is roughly equivalent to the sparsity costs suggested in the report involved. The money is being distributed to forces—including the hon. Gentleman's—with that very much in mind. It has, incidentally, been welcomed by both the hon. Gentleman's police authority and his chief constable.

Mr. Collins: It is no surprise that the police authority welcomes it, as the police authority is run by Cumbria

county council, which is run by the Labour party. The Minister has given us the staggering information that the Labour party welcomes things that the Labour party does. When I tell my constituents that, no doubt they will feel much happier.

Mr. Heald: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has looked at the Cumbria police website recently, but the chief constable there makes the point that there will be cuts again this year. Are there not great concerns about funding in Cumbria?

Mr. Collins: Indeed; the chief constable remains concerned. Police stations continue to close in my constituency and across Cumbria, police numbers continue to be lower than they were when the Government came to office, and Cumbria constabulary continues to feel that it cannot cope with the pressures imposed on it.
One provision in the Bill demonstrates the Government's funding priorities. According to the summary of the financial effects, the transitional—that is, the one-off—cost of establishing the new central police training and development authority will be £3.5 million. The explanatory notes tell us that, as recently as 1993, an organisation called Police Training was set up to carry out the same functions. Now we are being told that a new quango will be established, with its own chief executive, its own chairman and its own authority, at a cost of £3.5 million. That happens to be three times the shortfall about which the Cumbrian chief constable is complaining.
The Government seem to be demonstrating a wholly false sense of priorities. Of course police training matters—

Mr. Charles Clarke: rose—

Mr. Collins: The Minister knows that I cannot give way. I shall have to end my speech in the next minute.
Throughout all this, my concern is not that the Government are doing things that are in themselves automatically wrong; it is simply that they are setting out the wrong set of priorities. If they had wanted people to feel that their priority of tackling crime was being actioned, they would have tabled measures, even at this late stage of the Parliament, to return police numbers to the levels that they inherited in 1997.
The Conservative party will do that, and it has said how it will do it. As Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald will deliver greater police numbers, and that will contribute more to the fight against crime than everything that has been said and done by the Labour party in four wasted years.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: There is no doubt that crime is falling. We can have our knockabouts over whether it was falling when the last Government were in power, and whether it is falling faster now, but it is certainly falling. In Kent, my county, it is falling substantially: the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who has just left the Chamber, will know that it is down by 23 per cent.
What is not decreasing—although not many hon. Members have mentioned it today—is the perception of crime. If hon. Members were to knock on doors in their


constituencies, they would find people who believe that crime is soaring when it simply is not. I welcome the Bill because it targets the most appropriate crime and disorder issues to help people realise that crime is decreasing and that the streets can be made safe again for them.
On-the-spot penalties, for example, will give police a real opportunity to make a dramatic impact in our economically important town centres, where there are often high levels of disorderliness that are often associated with drink. Like other hon. Members, however, I should like to know how those penalties will be enforced. Taxi drivers in my constituency have told me of cases in which their taxis had been vandalised or they had been the victims of other types of crime, but the fines and costs imposed by the court on those who committed the offences were not enforced. I should therefore like my hon. Friend the Minister to address the enforcement issue.
There are questions, too, about the age of those who will be subject to on-the-spot penalties. I would quite welcome the imposition of such penalties on youngsters' parents. I think that we should investigate the possibility of extending the provision in that manner.
My constituents are aware of the advantages of DNA evidence, and they will welcome our extension of the law to make that evidence a more powerful tool for police. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) had serious civil liberties concerns about the proposals. However, I do not know how it can harm an innocent individual for his or her DNA to be on record. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), who gave a moving account of why it is so important to build up such a database.
Today, however, I should like to focus on the important issue of attacks on scientists. The subject is very important to me because my constituency contains a major pharmaceutical company that employs 5,000 people and represents a £1 billion United States investment in the United Kingdom. That type of investment will stop unless we can give those investors confidence that the United Kingdom is a place where they can do business and their work in freedom.
I have another interest in the matter. I am what animal rights activists like to call—when they scream out to me in the street—a vivisector. I started my scientific career doing animal experiments. I have no fear of saying that whatsoever. I am proud of the work that I did.
When I first started that work, at the Medical Research Council, my then boss had been newly appointed from Huntingdon Research Centre, which is now Huntingdon Life Sciences. Soon after I started working there, I went to him and said, "I feel very uncomfortable doing these experiments." His response was, "Good. That's the way you should stay feeling throughout your career. No one who feels comfortable doing these experiments should be doing them. That's how we keep them to a minimum. That's how we keep standards high and ensure that we do not cause any unnecessary suffering to animals."
I saw those high standards being pursued throughout my career in the pharmaceutical industry, not only in that job and in subsequent jobs, but in everything that I observed in the industry. It is downright wrong for those who are doing vital and important work to be intimidated, threatened and bullied.
I think that I owe the House an apology. I have been banging on about this subject since I was first elected to the House. A few months ago, I spoke to the Research Defence Society's annual general meeting and said that I did not think that there were more than a dozen Members of Parliament who would be prepared to put their heads above the parapet on the issue. Over the past few weeks, I have been delighted to realise that I was wrong. If what has happened has given the House a wake-up call, so that we realise that we are in danger of putting off huge investment in the UK and stopping vital research work, all that the poor people who worked at Huntingdon Life Sciences had to put up with will not be in vain.
I am delighted by the response in the House today and recently, but I am not so delighted by the reports that I have heard so far about how the Government are intending to tackle the matter. I have heard good words, but there are some holes in what the Government are proposing. I will be looking for proposals to deal with the way in which campaigns are organised, so that responsibility for what activists do is taken by the leaders of campaigns. I shall be looking for changes to the legislation on harassment and for the limits on peaceful protest to be defined, as well as proposals to deal with secondary targeting. The addresses of shareholders and directors of companies should be protected and the Malicious Communications Act 1988 needs to be reformed, as the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) said in a very good speech. Protests outside people's homes also need to be dealt with. All those issues are vital.
I hope that before my hon. Friend the Minister tables amendments to the Bill, he will meet the Research Defence Society, the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries and other leaders in the industry to discuss proposals to deal with all of their concerns. If he has any difficulty in putting together the meetings, I would be delighted to facilitate them.
This is an important issue, and I have been delighted by the response of the House today. I am looking forward to the Government making my constituents safe so that they can continue their vital work in creating drugs that will be vital to every man, woman and child in the country.

Mr. Chris Pond: I join my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) in underlining the fact that crime in Kent has fallen by 23 per cent. However, that is not matched by the perception of what is happening, or by a fall in the fear of crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) referred to her local newspaper, which comes from the same stable as my local paper. Both papers said that crime was increasing in our areas, although it has been falling.
We must pay tribute to the work of the Government since 1997 in providing mechanisms for the police. We must commend also the work of the police, the partnerships between the police and local authorities and the way in which the police have operated, particularly in Kent. Under the leadership of Sir David Phillips and with an intelligence-led approach, we have seen some dramatic changes.
Extra resources are important and Kent police has earned the extra 6.9 per cent. that was announced recently; for the second year running, Kent has received the largest


increase of any police force in the country. My local superintendent was able to provide me with a briefing as to what he will be able to do with the extra funding. In Dartford and Gravesham alone, 23 additional officer posts will be provided, including seven officers to work in rural areas and an extra two on rural crime, plus a team of eleven operating strategically for north Kent and Medway.
All this is part of the initiatives on the crimefighting fund and on dealing with rural crime; it will mean that, by 2002–03, Kent will have an additional 250 officers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) said earlier, however, it is not simply about numbers or resources but about how those numbers and resources are used.
I want to highlight two initiatives in Kent that I hope Ministers will not only encourage but build into legislation as the Bill develops. The first is an initiative on cell intervention: going into the cells and providing advice on debt and employment to people in police custody. That small-scale project, piloted by my local police force, has had dramatic results in leading people away from a life of crime and towards a life of more productive employment.
Alongside an overall reduction in crime, there has been a worrying increase in racially motivated crimes in my area. I am pleased that the Government have been tough on such crimes. One of my constituents noted a catalogue of incidents over two years, which included:
Bricks thrown through the conservatory roof … Stones and sticks thrown at the house around midnight by a group of six youths … I was attacked outside my house … punched in the face and my hair yanked out … My car was vandalised … Bag of dog faeces thrown on my patio … Racial abusing, threatening my children. They climbed on our fence and threatened to kill my children if they showed their little black faces outside or even dare peeped out of the window … Petrol bomb thrown outside my front door.
We have to be tough on the perpetrators of such activities, but we must also be tough on the causes by making sure that young people understand the implications at an early age. The second initiative that I commend to Ministers is the project which my local police force hopes to develop of working closely with schools on issues of race and the effects of racial crime.
My constituents will certainly welcome the Bill, and in particular the fixed penalties. Opposition Members have made some criticisms, but my local police have welcomed the fixed penalties and think that they are a useful additional weapon to deal with the one in six crimes in Gravesham and Dartford that are not serious enough to take the offender through arrest and the court process but which can create a climate of anxiety, fear and yob rule. We must deal with those crimes, and if the Bill can take us further in that direction, I welcome it.

Helen Jones: The Bill is wide-ranging, but I intend to confine my comments largely to those aspects that directly affect the lives of the people whom I represent, and to the problems that most concern them.
Civil liberties objections have been made to the Bill, and that is an important issue that deserves serious consideration. We should be very careful about restricting

civil liberties unless there is good reason to do so, but we must not confuse liberty with licence. When I see some of my constituents who are tormented in their own homes and fear to walk the streets because of the abuse and intimidation to which they are subjected, or who are insulted and abused when going about their lawful business, I have to ask whose civil liberties are being restricted. We must be concerned not about the perpetrators but about the ordinary, decent people who are subjected to such torment.
I see the Bill through the eyes of my constituents. mentioned earlier an elderly gentleman who was subjected to abuse, night after night, by a gang of youths, usually fuelled by alcohol, often bought for them by an adult and handed to them outside the shop in return for a share of the goods. Decent, honest shopkeepers in my constituency who try to prevent sales to minors say that they are powerless when such incidents occur. They will welcome the provisions that prevent people from buying alcohol for minors in that way.
We also welcome the provisions that require those who sell alcohol to take reasonable steps to satisfy themselves of the age of the person to whom they are selling. That strengthens the hand of decent, honest people in the trade and helps to get at rogue traders, who do not care about the damage that they cause to others when they flout the law. I suspect that hon. Members could point to such people in their constituencies. I can do that in my constituency, and so can local people. The police know about the problem, but it is difficult for them to take action. Strengthening the law is therefore important.
I have believed for some time that we should extend to trading standards officers the power to use minors in test purchases. No honest shopkeeper or licensee has anything to fear from that. If we fail to tackle such problems, we abandon people such as the elderly gentleman who was tormented day in, day out. week in, week out. It is not my role as a Member of Parliament to protect his persecutors. We need swift action to deal with causes, and we also need fixed-penalty notices, which will enable the perpetrators to be tackled quickly and efficiently.
There is merit in the argument that orders should apply to 16 and 17-year-olds. The groups of youths are often of mixed ages; some may be 18 but others are not. We should not underestimate the problems that harassment causes. The damage to people's health can be incalculable. I, like other hon. Members, have seen the victims of harassment in my surgery.
I remember two, quiet, middle-aged ladies, who had been tormented day after day in their homes by a neighbour. They could not even go into the garden without being sworn at and abused. They had never caused trouble in their lives; they had never owed the council a penny in rent. They deserve better protection from us. So do people who have been threatened, had graffiti daubed on their houses, objects thrown at their windows, and their children threatened, often for no apparent reason, except that some local group had decided to target them, sometimes because they were from a different area, sometimes because they had intervened when people were behaving badly. They need the full protection of the law.
Child curfews and action on the sale of alcohol will help the people whom I described. Extending the criminal law to cover witnesses in civil cases is also important.


Those witnesses are often afraid to give evidence in harassment cases or applications for antisocial behaviour orders. I cannot blame them for that. If I had been subjected to some of the torment that they suffered, I would also be afraid. The provision will give them more security.
We are not simply considering law enforcement. That is important, but, in tackling yobbish behaviour, the Bill stands alongside other measures that the Government have introduced to promote social inclusion and to tackle poverty. It is often rightly said that, when we were younger, any passing adult would probably have intervened if we were behaving badly. However, it is not often said that in those days, that passing adult would have known our mums, our dads and most of our relatives. That community spirit has broken down in many areas. It was destroyed in the 1980s and early 1990s by poverty and unemployment, which was caused by a Government who said that there was no such thing as society. We have to remember where the blame belongs. As well as tackling yobs, we should encourage the people who are doing their best to repair that damage and to rebuild a sense of community. Members of residents associations in my area—in places such as Blackbrook, Grasmere and Greenwood—invest a great deal of their time in such activity. Their work should be supported and valued by the Government.
Most of all, we need to offer our young people an alternative and to realise that most of them are not badly behaved, but have much talent and potential. It is no use complaining that they hang around the streets if we offer them nowhere else to go. It is no use saying that they are irresponsible if we do not help them to accept responsibility.
Last Friday, I had the privilege of opening a new youth centre at Birchwood in my constituency. The young people put on a marvellous display—dancing, singing and poetry. They showed what a wealth of talent is available. The people who set up that club deserve our congratulations. Sadly, however, such facilities are extremely rare. We need to invest in our young people and to show our confidence in them. As well as introducing measures such as this Bill to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour, we need to start seeing our young people as part of the solution and not just part of the problem.
The Bill goes a long way towards tackling the problems that affect my constituents and it will be welcomed by many of them. However, I hope that, when my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate, he will put the measure in the context of the Government's overall strategy. We need to recreate a civil society in which people can feel safe in their own homes and on the streets. That is about taking back our communities and regaining control of them. I hope that the measure will help decent people to do that. I commend it to the House.

Gillian Merron: I welcome the Bill as another step on the way to refining our approach to tackling and preventing crime. It confirms to me and to many of us the effectiveness of a partnership approach in which the Government are prepared to take a pivotal role in meeting their full responsibility in preventing and solving crime and—crucially—in reducing the fear of crime that blights the lives of many of our constituents.
Under the Labour Government, crime in Lincolnshire has reduced by a fifth—twice the national reduction. Lincolnshire police have confirmed to me that, by April, their officer strength will be 1,240—the highest-ever in our county. It is important to talk up the above-average effectiveness of the Lincolnshire police force, because I am concerned that many of the comments made by Opposition Members serve to paint a somewhat inaccurate picture of policing and of crime rates. That stirs up the fear of crime and is irresponsible.
Lincolnshire police are to be congratulated on their above-average performance in the following matters. They are among the top ten forces in solving crimes of violence. More than nine in 10 phone calls are answered within the 10-second target time. They have reorganised the force by putting more officers in the front line and by reducing the burden of management. We should pay tribute to them for their first-rate efforts in policing our county.
In my constituency and throughout the country, it is unacceptable that an elderly lady cannot go to bingo with her friends; that a young man has to steel himself against the possibility of a fight while he is in a city centre on a Friday night; or that neighbours act in a less than neighbourly fashion—terrorising people both inside and outside their homes. Some people might regard those matters as minor nuisances. I do not. No one should be frightened to go about their daily life in peace. We are all entitled to be and to feel safe.
I shall focus on the child curfew scheme—one of the many down-to-earth provisions that offer opportunities both to prevent and cure problems of public disorder. My constituents look to the Government for such provisions. I welcome the proposal to improve the scheme by applying such curfews to people up to and including the age of 15. That was proposed in a ten-minute Bill—of which I was pleased to be a sponsor—introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker). I pay tribute to him for championing such proposals.
The overwhelming majority of young people are law abiding and have a sense of community. In my experience, they want that sense of community and responsibility to be supported and protected by measures such as those in the Bill. Child curfew schemes involve designating a particular area—for example, a park, an alleyway or shop fronts—for a specific, fixed period between 9 pm and 6 am as being out of bounds to young people of a particular age unless they are accompanied by a responsible adult.
I thought that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was somewhat alarmist in his explanation of what he believed child curfew schemes involve. Indeed, the purpose of the schemes is to take the very action that worried constituents say that they want. They want to protect themselves in certain areas where children may gather and engage in threatening and/or criminal behaviour. However, the schemes are also intended to protect the children themselves. They may be at risk from their older peers, who may encourage them to offend, or from adult drug dealers or pimps—something about which every parent has a fear. The changes will make child curfew schemes more useful; they will certainly be taken up more widely. Extending the age range will recognise the fact that intimidating groups of children often comprise young people of different ages, and we need to tackle that problem.
The Bill is intended to give the police, as well as local authorities, the practical tools needed to do a practical job, which many of our constituents want to be done without criminalising children. Of course, we all know that peace and order in many local communities can be thrown into disarray by just a few people or households, and they cannot be allowed to continue to keep their unhealthy hold on a community. That is why the extension of witness protection to those giving evidence in cases involving antisocial behaviour orders is also to be welcomed.
There is an urgent need to promote the use of the numerous new measures in the Bill. They are very much what people in Lincoln want, but we must continue to work in partnership with the police, local authorities and local communities to ensure that people, such as those in Lincoln, see the measures working to protect them.

Mr. Oliver Heald: We have had an excellent debate with some moving contributions, as well as some thoughtful ones. I should like to highlight the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who in representing a constituency interest, expressed the concern that we all feel about what is happening with Huntingdon Life Sciences and other companies. My constituency is about equidistant from Huntingdon, Cambridge and Peterborough, and some of my constituents are being treated in the way that has been described. We must all feel their sense of terror when they experience fire-bomb incidents; cleaning fluid is thrown in their eyes; they receive hate mail; and their children are threatened.
My right hon. Friend described incidents such as that in which undertakers were called to a house to take away someone's child when, of course, the child was alive and well. The distress caused by such behaviour has been recognised on both sides of the House, and by the hon. Members for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who has worked in the industry, and for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and others. So it is right to concentrate on that issue.
The Home Secretary said that he is prepared to consider amending the Public Order Act 1986 to protect people in their houses and to curtail protests outside houses. That is welcome. He has told us that he is prepared to consider the way in which the Malicious Communications Act 1988 works and to consider an objective rather than a subjective test.
Is the Minister still considering what other measures might be possible? Some of the incidents that have been described do not fall into a clear category, but they were very threatening. It would help if the Minister were to make a commitment on issues such as secondary action and to give the clear statements that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon wanted. The Minister should point out that United Kingdom legislation demands tests on animals; animal tests are required by regulators; the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 has the strictest requirements for animal research anywhere in the world; and the legislation demands that animal tests should not be available if other non-animal testing is possible. It would be good if the Minister could give such clear statements tonight. This important issue is worrying the country, but all Members agree about it.
The same cannot be said of all the other matters that have been debated. Although the Opposition take the view that this is a crimefighting measure that will give powers to police officers and others to help in the fight against crime, we have the important reservations that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and other Conservative Members have highlighted in their contributions.
First, we are concerned by what the Bill has left out. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) painted a picture of a Christmas tree with empty baubles on it and the Minister rushing from the Home Office to each Department to ask, "Have you got anything on the shelf that we can trot out in this pre-election period?"

Mr. Charles Clarke: Perhaps I should be called Santa.

Mr. Heald: The Minister would like to be called Santa. Perhaps this Christmas tree has lights, but they are not twinkling.
The country faces important challenges. Violent crime, street crime and the incidence of robbery are rising. Yet, when the Home Secretary and the Minister have the time available to consult on the offences against the person legislation and the means to provide modern laws to strengthen the fight against violent crime, they do nothing. They have had the opportunity to reform the early release scheme so that those who assault police officers in the execution of their duty are not released before they have served half their sentence, and we have managed to convert the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey on that point. He used to take the same line on this as the Minister, but he is now a convert. Come on, Minister—we want him to decide that the police should be protected in that way.
As one of the largest reviews ever of the criminal justice system is about to report, it is curious that the Minister is putting before the House a set of slighter measures simply because an election is in the offing. They are slight measures by comparison with the challenge that the country faces in terms of violent crime, falling police numbers and all the problems that he and I have debated on many occasions.
The Bill raises concerns about bureaucracy. The Police Federation and the Police Superintendents Association wonder whether the fixed penalties notices will save any of their time so that the police can have a more visible presence on the streets. The worry is that clause 8 seems to require a police statement to be prepared in every case, so where will the saving be made? It would be helpful if the Minister could assure us and the police that the new procedure will serve to save police time and give them a greater ability to do the job that they and the public want them to do.
It would be helpful if the Minister addressed some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who explained, given his experience as a recorder and a stipendiary magistrate, the difficulties of distinguishing between an 18-year-old and an under-l8-year-old who are drunk in the street. He described the difficulties of finding out how many times a person had had the benefit of fixed-penalty notices. Will notice after notice be served without the person ever ending up in court?
One thing that victims of criminal damage want is some compensation, but it is available only on conviction. Will the Minister give victims some consolation? Will they be able in some way to receive compensation if their fence is kicked in or other criminal damage is done, for example, to their vehicle? There is a range of practical issues to do with fixed penalty notices on which we are looking for answers.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was generous about my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald and considered the issue of non-drinking zones and closure orders. [Interruption.] No, he was generous—for him. There are questions about how non-drinking zones will be implemented. Will councils decide such issues in full council, or under the new system will one Cabinet Member be in charge of designating the zones? That concern has been raised with me by councillors, and it would be helpful if the Minister reassured us that there will be a proper debate in full council on the designation of zones.
We heard important comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who pointed out that it is all very well introducing measures such as child curfew orders, fixed penalty notices and so on, but there is not much point to them if there are not enough police officers to enforce them. Many Labour Members proudly read out how burglaries and car crime have fallen in their areas, which is good news. [Interruption.] That is good news, but they also said, "But we are very worried about street crime, robberies and violence." They might like to ponder the fact that intensive police operations targeting known car thieves and burglars use a lot of manpower that could be providing a visible presence on the streets. If there are enough police officers to go round, both can be achieved. At the moment, however, assigning police officers to particular campaigns makes the streets less safe.

Maria Eagle: If police numbers are the only thing that matters, will the hon. Gentleman explain why between 1980 and 1989 police numbers increased but crime went up by 40 per cent?

Mr. Heald: I have never said that it did not take us a long time to turn round the disastrous Labour years of the 1970s. This Government inherited falling crime and rising police numbers. The Home Secretary likes to say that he has had the best start of any Home Secretary since the war. The truth is that he did because we gave it to him. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) introduced tough measures and always, year on year, increased the number of police constables. It was his legacy that the Home Secretary took on, and squandered.

Mr. Straw: There is a serious point about the relationship between police numbers at the margin and overall levels of crime. If the hon. Gentleman seriously examines figures for the past four years, he will see that police forces with the best record in reducing crime are not necessarily those that received the largest increases in budget or in police numbers, of which there are quite a number. Does he accept that the critical issue is not police

numbers at the margin—although of course I want them to increase—but the efficiency and effectiveness of the police service in any area?

Mr. Heald: The right hon. Gentleman and I have debated the issue on other occasions. He knows that I say that if there are two police forces that are efficient, and one of them has more than 1,000 more officers than the other for the same head of population, it will do more. We cannot assume that each police force will for ever remain inefficient here and efficient there. We should be aiming for the best standards for them all. If that is achieved, the force with the more police officers will do more work. That makes sense.
The Home Secretary must recognise that by letting police numbers fall by 2,500 and by allowing the number of special constables to collapse by almost one third, it is no coincidence that we have soaring violent crime. Letting out prisoners early means they are outside committing crimes. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. There is the irony of the right hon. Gentleman saying that we need tougher measures on bail so that those who have not been convicted will be put more regularly into custody awaiting trial, when at the same time he is saying that those who are known to have committed crime—those who have been convicted—should leave prison before serving half their term. How can that be explained? The Government are nonsensical on law and order on so many occasions. There is a great deal of spin but there is not much delivery.
Civil rights constitute an important issue for the House, for Conservatives and for Liberal Democrats. We support measures that make crimefighting easier. For example, we support a wider dissemination of information between the Inland Revenue and crimefighters. However, it is important to uphold the principle that confidentiality should be breached only in circumstances where that is necessary; that is, where there are good reasons and where there is a serious investigation. I would welcome assurances from the Minister that he will not establish a general principle that confidential information can float around government without proper controls being in place.

Mr. Straw: What about benefit fraud?

Mr. Heald: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position.
I was the Minister who took through the House the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Bill, which allowed data matching. It enabled the information that the Department of Social Security had as to whether people were claiming benefit to be matched with the information that the Inland Revenue had about whether they were working. We were able to find numerous cases of people who were working and claiming. That was a good reason for introducing the Bill, and I make no apology for doing so. The Minister must come up with a similarly good reason for his proposed measures. Given the context, and given that Inland Revenue information would be involved, it would seem that a serious investigation should be in hand.
The Minister must answer the CBI's concern that information that is held by the Office of Fair Trading will be given to overseas authorities for criminal anti-trust


investigations where the same circumstances would not lead either to a criminal or a civil investigation. Is that right? If so, why?
Many issues arise from the Bill. It is good if we can close rowdy pubs, provided that there are proper protections. It is good if we can limit drug traffickers' travel. It is good if we can have better witness protection. It is good if we can stop the importation of obscene and paedophiliac information. It is good if we can strengthen bail laws and it is good also if we can have new powers of arrest for kerb crawling, for example. It is good if we can improve the life of scientists, whose lives are being made a misery.
Against the scale of the challenge on law and order, the Conservative party's contention is that the Bill is a disappointment because it will not meet the challenge of the time. It is a Christmas tree of a Bill, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, said. It is disappointing when it comes to bureaucracy, practicability, targeting and civil rights. It is no surprise that the Prime Minister is not prepared to debate law and order matters with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I agree with the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) about one thing: generally, it has been a good debate which, for the most part, has not been politically partisan. However, interestingly, there were 17 contributions from Government Members and 10 from Members of Opposition parties, including two from Liberal Democrat Members. I was a little disappointed that the Conservative Benches were often empty during our debate.
I do not intend to address in detail very familiar discussions about falling crime, rising police numbers, growing police morale and early release issues. We had an Opposition day debate on those matters just a few days ago and on Wednesday this week we shall debate the police grant settlement. Those are full opportunities for addressing what are, I acknowledge, important issues. I do not therefore intend to address them in detail this evening, except to say that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the principle of partnership underlying it are at the core of everything that the Government are seeking to do and of the Bill itself.
I shall deal first with matters not included in the Bill, of which criticism has been made. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made a point about victims. There are provisions on witness protection in the Bill, about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) spoke eloquently.
A victims' rights consultation paper will shortly be launched, with a series of key proposals, to transform the position of victims throughout the country. It is not, as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said, a question of four years; it is a question of 18 years during which nothing was done and four years in which we have been developing a programme of action to support the

position of victims. The way to deal with legislation in that area is to be coherent on the position of victims of a range of crimes.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has raised the question of changes to the offences against the person legislation, and the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire raised the matter at the end of our debate. The Opposition are right to say that we issued a consultation document on the matter in February 1998. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald may disagree but, in our view, an overhaul of the offences against the person legislation is best handled in the context of a law reform Bill, which would also include changes to the law on involuntary manslaughter and corporate killing. We are still considering the final shape of our policy in the light of responses to and debates on those matters, but we think that that is the best way to deal with those circumstances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) raised the matter of graffiti. I can give her the assurance that she sought. We are considering the matter—in fact, I addressed it in a substantive Adjournment debate at the end of last year—and we are looking at introducing measures. However, we did not consider them appropriate for the Bill.
My hon. Friends the Members for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) addressed the need for fuller reform of the licensing law. Perhaps I can help them by indicating that, as is well known, we are committed to reforming the whole licensing situation as a result of the White Paper. Licensing legislation takes high priority. We have included only certain measures from the White Paper in the Bill because of the need to give the legislation a comprehensive nature. However, I can give my hon. Friends the assurance that they sought: licensing reform remains a high priority, not only for general reasons concerning the civilisation of our country but for the crime reduction reasons discussed in some contributions.
The main matter not included in the Bill that was addressed in debate concerned animal rights and protests on that issue. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire raised that matter, perfectly reasonably, in his winding-up speech. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made the position clear in his opening speech, but we heard excellent speeches on the matter from the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)—whose speech was outstanding—the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), and my hon. Friends the Members for Burton (Mrs. Dean), for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton), for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman). Those Members focused on the matter, but it was also raised by others.
We will try to table amendments for the Committee stage of the Bill, as requested. We will examine carefully points made in this debate and those made by the Research Defence Society. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet, we are familiar with the RDS's specific proposals, which have been echoed by some speakers in the House this evening. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who is dealing with the matter, is already meeting people involved in those areas and will continue to do so. We are happy to have meetings to discuss the issues in great detail.
The right hon. Member for Huntingdon made several specific points, to which he asked for responses. Out of courtesy, I shall give them from the Dispatch Box now. The right hon. Gentleman asked, first, whether the present UK legislation required new medicines to be tested on animals, and whether animal tests were also required by regulatory bodies for agrochemicals, pesticides and so on. The answer is that where manufacturers of medicines and agricultural products have to provide safety data relating to their products, they must find the most suitable tests to provide that data. In many cases, the only suitable tests involve the use of animals.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm that the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 contains the strictest rules governing animal research. Again, I can confirm that he is correct. The Government consider that legislation to be the strictest of its kind in the world. That endorses the various points made in all parts of the House about the quality of the safeguards, which are the best in the world. If we threaten the industry in this country, that will have the direct effect of impairing conditions for animals throughout the world.
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether I could confirm that before animal research is licensed, the Home Office must be assured that tests could not be adequately be carried out without animal experiments. That is indeed the case. If there is a non-animal alternative, a test cannot be licensed. That is a requirement of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act.
I can confirm various points that were made. In the light of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet, I confirm also that any new powers will be directed at intimidating protests outside homes generally. They will not relate only to Huntingdon Life Sciences or only to animal rights protesters, but to other scientists such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend.
As a result of the strong feeling expressed during the debate, I am confident that proposed legislation and Government amendments on the matter will receive widespread support in this House and in the other place. We will consult other political parties about the amendments that the Government intend to introduce. We are keen to carry through the clear feeling of the House this evening, to ensure that the appalling behaviour about which we have heard is isolated and rendered unacceptable in this country.
I shall deal with the matters that are included in the Bill, but which are controversial. The first is the issue of DNA sampling and testing. I was delighted by the general agreement about the need to include legislation on that. I except from that the comments of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and, to some extent, those of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who expressed doubt.
The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) made a powerful and moving speech from his own experience, and indicated—I hope I am not misinterpreting him—his strong support for legislation on the matter, for reasons that he identified from his constituency experience, with which many hon. Members would agree. He is correct to say that under the Bill, consent to retain samples cannot be revoked. No doubt that will be debated in Committee.
We believe that the provision will not deter volunteers from giving informed consent, whereas allowing consent to be withdrawn would lead back to the problems of the

current law, which were exposed in the R. v. B. case, to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred. If a match were made in the context of a serious crime after a person had withdrawn his consent, what would be the situation? Our proposal is intended to cover that case. I acknowledge the seriousness of the hon. Gentleman's argument, and we are prepared to consider the matter in detail in Committee.
I asked the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey to be clear about his party's position on the matter, but I do not think that he was clear. Given the feeling in the House on the DNA issue, it is important that the hon. Gentleman's party should make its position clear by the time the Bill reaches Committee. The Government's proposal will undoubtedly bring benefits to crime solving.
The second issue on which there was controversy concerned fixed-penalty notices, about which we heard comments from the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, my right hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), and my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith). Many of those speeches were strongly in favour of the Government's proposals and set out clear arguments for improving the weapons available to the police to deal with low-level disorder. Some doubts were expressed, and the issues will be debated in Committee. The hon. Member for Woking asked about the logic behind the list of offences, and suggested, in an uncharacteristically insulting way, that insufficient thought had been given to the matter. Several offences on the list were originally proposed in our consultation paper for inclusion in the scheme. A range of other possible offences were suggested by those who responded to the paper. The list covers a wide range of offending behaviour. The Government consider that some examples of the behaviour covered by each offence would be suitably dealt with by means of fixed penalties.
The organisations whose views we requested provided a substantial response. They include the Justices' Clerks Society, the Magistrates Association, the Law Society and a wide range of other organisations. Of course, they had different opinions, which I am sure will be reflected in Committee. I said in answer to a question asked by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire that the responses would be placed in the Library for hon. Members to consider before they participate in Standing Committee debates. There will be full debate on the points that have been made, which will be considered in great detail.
Curfew orders were the third controversial issue in the debate. They were dealt with in the powerful speeches made by my right hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Gorton and for Cardiff, South and Penarth, and by my hon. Friends the Members for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) and for Warrington, North (Helen Jones). I associate myself with the praise given by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) for his consistent campaigning to ensure that the matters with which the Bill deals featured properly on the statute book.
I have some key points about the concerns expressed. First, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth referred to the critical importance of partnership. Indeed, all the measures are products to be used in partnership. That is the approach that we are trying constantly to build, as it is critically important in achieving our aims. Secondly, the measures must be targeted at the troublemakers and the people who are creating the difficulty. They do not ensure a universal curfew for everyone. They are intended to be targeted on particular individuals who are making other people's lives a misery. It is important to have power to deal with such people.
Thirdly, Opposition Members did not appreciate that the purpose of the range of measures—the antisocial behaviour orders, curfew orders and so on—is as much to prohibit and prevent antisocial behaviour as to punish it. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that our measures are achieving that purpose in a wide variety of ways. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet rightly referred to parents. In Islington, police and housing services are working together exceptionally closely and involving parents in the conduct of their children. That is an excellent example of such activities. The threat of antisocial behaviour orders and other measures is available to ensure that other arrangements can be properly enforced—an important factor to which sufficient attention has not always been paid.
The final point of controversy in the Bill is the range of alcohol measures, which will again be considered in Committee. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald asked about the difference between the Bill and current local arrangements and the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire asked about council approvals. Many local authorities already have alcohol byelaw s. The Bill provides a uniform and comprehensive set of powers, as it is vital for such powers to exist. The police will be able to direct people not to continue drinking and to confiscate glasses and bottles that might otherwise be used as weapons. The council need only designate the area and the police powers will apply, which is a far less bureaucratic arrangement than the current byelaw procedures.

Mr. Heald: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clarke: I shall not do so as I have so little time; I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. The procedure for the council to make the designation—the point that he mentioned—will be set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State. There will be parliamentary scrutiny of those points.
The Government believe that the legislation is necessary. It will extend civil liberties, help to drive down crime levels, give more targeted weapons to partnerships, improve detection and the solution of crimes, build up intelligence-led policing and improve police training. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — Criminal Justice and Police Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question proposed:
That the following provisions shall apply to the Criminal Justice and Police Bill:

Orders of the Day — Standing Committee

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
2. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.
3. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 8th March 2001.

Orders of the Day — Consideration and Third Reading

4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at half past eight o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is Thursday, at half past five o'clock on that day. 
5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at ten o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is Thursday, at seven o'clock on that day.
6. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

Orders of the Day — Lords amendments and further messages from the Lords

7. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any motion to vary or supplement this order for the purpose of allocating time to proceedings on consideration of any Lords amendments, or on any further messages from the Lords, and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Heald.

Mr. Heald: rose—

Mr. Speaker: My apologies. I should have called Mr. Clarke.

10 pm

Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to you and to the House for not being quick enough off the mark.
The motion proposes that the Committee stage of the Bill should finish by Thursday 8 March. By suggesting that date, we believe that we have allowed adequate time in Committee—that is, a total of 16 sittings. Of course, the Programming Sub-Committee will consider the detailed timetable and may decide that it is necessary for the Committee to sit more frequently than usual.
The Programming Sub-Committee will also enable Conservative Members to decide to spend more time on the parts of the Bill that they most wish to discuss. Let me take this opportunity to reiterate what we see as one of the most positive aspects of the programming of debates: it offers the Opposition the opportunity to determine the structure and focus of the debate.


We believe that the arrangement of business within the time allocated should be a matter principally for the Opposition and for Back-Bench Members.
It may be of interest to reflect on the experience of the programming of the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, on which I led for the Government. The Government's stance throughout, in the Programming Sub-Committee and elsewhere, was very simple: we wanted to have debates in which there was cogent argument and room for full discussion. We were less concerned with some of the techniques that certain Opposition Members sought to use and develop to take up time. Our experience was that the programme motion allowed the issues to be fully and cogently debated despite the substantial effort to consume time of some Opposition Members of the Committee, who preferred listening to their own voices to debating the points before them.
We believe that it should be for the Opposition to come forward and say, within the time available, "These are the issues that we most want to debate." I place it on record that we will listen and that we will honour that wish as we proceed.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: It has already been said in the House that Programming Sub-Committees are unaccountable. Their proceedings are not transparent and there is no record of them. Now the Minister is giving an account of what happened on the Vehicles (Crime) Bill as a way of explaining how everything is working perfectly. Is the hon. Gentleman now a convert to the idea of having a proper record of the proceedings?

Mr. Clarke: I did not suggest that it was working perfectly. In fact, the Government's view, as clearly set out, was that they were very happy with whatever arrangements were made in that regard. However, the rules of conduct of the Programming Sub-Committee were a matter for the Chair, and you, Mr. Speaker, have made your judgment on that. I think I am right in saying that the Chair's decision was that the Programming Sub-Committee was to be treated broadly speaking as a Select Committee.
I am saying that, above and beyond that, there is in my opinion an obligation on all members of the Committee to take the debate on the legislation seriously and make a distinction between points that are serious and substantive and those that are not. As Conservative Members in Committee and even the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) may concede from our experience of Bills in the last Session of Parliament, as a Minister I sought at all times to take seriously the serious points that were made and to accept amendments that were put forward, including those from the Opposition, if they seemed right. However, there is a distinction between serious debate, which the procedure is designed to encourage, and the kind of time-wasting filibustering that some Conservative Members sought to engage in.

Mr. Heald: Is not the problem that, according to the programme motion, on a substantial Bill with more than 130 clauses, we will have to finish consideration by 8.30 pm and Third Reading by 10 pm? That really is not good enough. If there were a statement on the day in question and the time was even further constrained, it would not leave us enough time to debate such a substantial Bill. Does the Minister not agree that, with a

Bill of this size, it is inevitable that a significant number of amendments will be tabled? He has already mentioned that.

Mr. Clarke: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I accept that his points are legitimate. By that, I mean that he is right to focus on the amount of time that will be taken up with genuine debate—and I believe that the hon. Gentleman will engage in serious debate rather than in the kind of filibustering that I have just described. He raises an important and legitimate point. However, when he asks whether I think we shall have enough time, my answer is that I think we shall.
Furthermore, we have the ability, through the Programming Sub-Committee procedure, to extend the amount of time available by increasing the frequency of our sittings or by whatever means may be necessary in order to achieve that end, if it is desirable. To give an example from our deliberations on the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, we reconvened the Programming Sub-Committee at one point during the Committee stage to change our timetable. That was entirely legitimate and was done with the agreement of all members of the Committee.

Mr. Malins: I want to make a serious point, and I hope that the Minister will forgive me for saying this. Will he accept that the Bill covers territory with which I am very familiar through my judicial work? Will he also accept that I cannot serve on the Committee because I am on the Chairmen's Panel? Thirdly, will he accept that I asked him a dozen questions during the course of this afternoon's debate, and that he has not been able to answer any of them? I appreciate that he might possibly write to me about them.
Does the Minister accept that someone in my position finds the prospect of so truncated a consideration of the Bill on Report quite impossible? I have at least a dozen amendments to table on Report which I cannot table in Committee, all of which will need the proper scrutiny of the House.

Mr. Clarke: I accept the hon. Gentleman's first two points, relating to his expertise and his membership of the Chairmen's Panel, and to the consequence of that membership on his ability to serve in Committee. As the hon. Gentleman was speaking, Mr. Speaker, I asked for and received your guidance as to whether people on the Chairmen's Panel could serve in Committee. You confirmed to me the view that the hon. Gentleman has expressed.
I can commit myself to answering in detail the points that the hon. Gentleman raised in debate this afternoon. I am sorry that I could not do so in the short time available for summation earlier. Secondly, I also guarantee that all the points that he raised will be addressed in Committee. If they are not addressed to his satisfaction, he may wish to table amendments at a later stage. However, I remain of the view that the amount of time allocated in the programme motion is perfectly sufficient to allow us to debate the issues at great length. I am therefore delighted to support the motion.

Mr. Heald: The Opposition find this procedure unacceptable. Before Second Reading, the Government tabled a motion setting out how much time there would be for debate in Committee. At that point, we had heard neither the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) nor any of the range of views expressed in almost 20 other speeches made today.
The Bill clearly throws up a range of issues, including the practical issues about the way in which fixed-penalty notices will work, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) brought his knowledge. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) proved an expert on curfews and told the House how good they would be, despite the fact that not one has been granted under the present regime, which he introduced. A range of issues on civil rights, among other matters, was also raised.
What makes this programme motion even worse than the others that have gone before it is that, this time, the Government are seeking in advance to programme consideration and Third Reading. That has never been done before in a programme motion, and it should not happen. The idea that a Standing Committee's proceedings can be programmed without hon. Members' having heard the Second Reading debate is laughable. The idea that we can say how much time will be needed for consideration and Third Reading, when we do not have a clue what the Committee will throw up, is even worse. It is time for those who understand the procedures of the House in detail, and the usual channels, to reconsider the matter. How can it be right to programme proceedings when we do not know the ambit of debate? That is nonsense.
We know that a significant number of amendments to the Bill will be tabled on the range of issues outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon—issues relating to the scientists being persecuted at Huntingdon Life Sciences, and to other scientists referred to tonight. It seems daft to say, "Oh well, we haven't seen the amendments, but we know that we need 16 sittings." More than 16 sittings are provided for us to consider the Finance Bill, which is usually about the same length as this Bill, even though the range of issues considered by a Finance Bill Committee is in some ways narrower.
The Government are wrong to have tabled the motion. If consideration is taken on a day on which there is a statement, it may begin at five o'clock but it will still have to finish by 8.30 pm—even though the Bill deals with a range of issues such as civil rights, fixed-penalty notices, curfews and evidential requirements involved with disclosure of information. That is unrealistic and I ask the Minister to think again. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Vehicles (Crime) Bill—as he will remember, I complained loudly about the programme motion—and said, "Actually, you were right because we had to change the timetable mid-way through the proceedings." That represents a concession that the procedure is flawed.

Mr. Clarke: May I clarify that? We changed the timetable, but we did not lengthen it. The time allocated remained the same and we completed our debates within it, to the satisfaction of all sides.

Mr. Heald: But does not the Minister agree that the fact that the programme had to be changed while the

Committee was in full flow showed that deciding all such matters at the outset is wrong? It is not in the Opposition's gift to say how long will be needed in Committee and how long will be needed for consideration and Third Reading. The Opposition used to have more locus and more ability to influence such matters. The change is bad for democracy.
This big Bill deals with many issues and it will take a long time to consider them thoroughly. As the Minister said, I am not one for filibustering, although I like to take him to task on the provisions in detail, but we simply cannot say at this stage that 16 sittings are enough; nor can we say that it is adequate—and I am sure it is not right—for consideration and Third Reading to take place on one curtailed day.
A considerable number of new clauses will be tabled on matters other than Huntingdon Life Sciences and its problems—on prisoners who have been released early, for example. [Interruption.] The Minister laughs, but that is a serious point. Large numbers of police officers are being assaulted and the people going to prison for such assaults are being released having served less than half their time. That is an insult to the police, who feel that early releases are bad for morale. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) originally agreed with the Minister on that matter but has been converted. It is time that the Minister also came round. Police morale is a serious issue and letting people who have assaulted officers out of prison early is an insult. The Minister can be fairly sure that there will be a new clause on that, because I have just tabled one. Similarly, he can be pretty sure that there will be a new clause on the important issue of the early release of child sex offenders, because I have just tabled one. There is a range of new clauses that will require debate.
We ought to reflect on the issue of modernisation. Is it progress to say that the Opposition cannot have the time they need to debate important issues? What could be more important than how we deal with the persecution of people in their own homes and how we tackle violence in our streets? Confidentiality and the Inland Revenue, documents that may help in huge investigations, and importing pornography are big issues; and it is not right for the Minister to guillotine proceedings, particularly as he always appears to enjoy engaging in debate. Why be so sparing with time?

Mr. Clarke: I do not know whether it would help the hon. Gentleman if I gave him the assurance that I gave the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) in connection with the Vehicles (Crime Bill); but in the event of serious debate of serious issues in Committee, if there is no attempt to filibuster and if we seem to be running short of time, I am prepared to commit myself to discussing with Opposition parties the possibility of reconvening the Programming Sub-Committee to establish how we can make time available.

Mr. Heald: I realise that the Minister feels he has made a great concession. That is marvellous for him, but we should not have to request time for debate from him; the Opposition should have a right to the time that they need to scrutinise the Government's legislation. It should indeed be a right, not a privilege. I made the same point when we discussed the Vehicles (Crime) Bill. "Modernisation" is a backward step if it means inadequate time for scrutiny.
In a way, it is typical of Labour to describe something so retrogressive as modernisation. If anything, it means returning to an era when there was no true democracy, and a Member could not argue his case. The whole principle is wrong. There is likely to be an election and the Bill may well not make the statute book, but we could at least do it the justice of debating each and every clause in detail.

Mr. Clarke: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can refresh our memories. Was there any occasion in the 18 years during which his party was in government when it guillotined consideration of these matters, in Committee or at any other stage?

Mr. Heald: There were guillotines—no one would argue with that—and Labour Members often objected. It is rather sad when a Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and says "Oh, you were absolute shockers, and we are going to be worse." That is no way in which to govern the country sensibly.
The Government are developing a bad reputation. There were 118 amendments to the Bill that became the Freedom of Information Act 2000, 77 of which were not debated here. There were 268 amendments to what became the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, 47 of which were not debated here. There were 666 amendments to what became the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, 522 of which were not debated here. Those amendments were debated more extensively in the House of Lords, where people are not elected to represent the interests of electors, than here in the House of Commons, where we are all elected to come and do this job. Is it right for Labour Members, in the interests of finishing early or having an easy ride in debate, to deprive the Opposition of the time that is needed?
Let me make two more points. First, the Minister has made an offer regarding the Standing Committee, but what about Report and Third Reading? Not everyone can be on the Committee, but issues involving civil rights and the like are of great interest to members of all parties. It seems wrong that the debate on Report—when members of the Committee give the House their views, and others can consider what happened in Committee and present their own opinions—should be so curtailed. What account is being taken of all the Members who cannot be on the Committee?
Secondly, what about Back Benchers? True, the Minister and I, and doubtless a Whip from each side—perhaps more—will go into a huddle, and there will be no record of the proceedings. In Committee I may unburden myself a little, so that other Committee members know something of what happened. But the fact is that we shall be there making judgments on how long Back Benchers want to discuss particular issues in Committee, which is not an easy exercise.
When I was a silent one, I did quite a lot of trying to timetable debates involving the whole House—on, for instance, the Bills that became the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998. We often found, with the best will in the world—having worked hard to decide how long was needed—that a Member from Scotland or Wales would have a perfectly legitimate point to make about a particular aspect of the legislation, and others would not be able to make their points. In a number of

debates significant points could not be debated because we had not managed to secure the fingertip control of timing that we wanted. It is unfair to Back Benchers if a heavy-handed approach is taken.
I therefore ask the Minister whether it is not time to reconsider, to withdraw the programme motion and to allow matters to proceed as they used to in the good old days—when time was allowed seriously to debate the issues for as long as was warranted. Is not the motion a backward step, and should not the Government think again?

Mr. Malins: This programme motion—I have not spoken to a programme motion before—is shameful. I hope that the Minister will be kind enough to listen to my arguments.
Never mind for now that the Minister and the Government have decided that the Committee should finish by 8 March—although I simply do not know where they got that date from. Let us consider how consideration on Report will operate. As described on the Order Paper, it seems that Report may last for less than four hours. The Bill has well over 130 clauses and various schedules. Moreover, it raises a great many issues.
The Minister will know that, today, on Second Reading, I spoke for 14 minutes and never strayed from the subject, focusing only on the Bill's first dozen or so clauses. He knows that the penalty issues—the so-called on-the-spot penalties—are themselves a fairly major topic that has to be examined very closely by people who know what they are talking about, but the Government are offering us only four hours to consider those provisions.
It is worse than that. As I said earlier, the Committee will include only three or four Opposition Members, each of whom may or may not have some expertise on the subject. Other Labour Members and Opposition Members will not be able to serve in Committee. Believe it or not, some of those hon. Members may have real expert knowledge of the subject. In my view, one of the great tragedies of this Chamber is the amount of our debate that consists of our doing no more than mouthing platitudes at one another or watching the clock until there is another vote. There may be another shout and another rampage, but where, oh where is the constructive, sensible thinking?
Today, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) alluded to the fact that many hon. Members have some knowledge of a subject but that very rarely do they have the chance to share it. As he said, there are so many ways of approaching a Bill to make it better.
It is not many weeks since the House considered two quite important pieces of legislation—the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill and the Football (Disorder) Act 2000, which had to do with jury trial and with preventing some football fans from going abroad. I may lack absolute knowledge of many subjects, but I worked very hard on those two Bills, preparing amendments for consideration on Report.
I thought that my amendments were worthy of debate, so I sat in the Chamber all day in the hope of speaking to them. I had not spoken in the House for weeks, but I wanted to comment on an issue about which I knew. Is anyone surprised to learn that our consideration was


guillotined and that not one of my amendments was touched? That made me sad, not because I have that much great wisdom but because I had something to say on those matters. There are hon. Members who have something to say about the Criminal Justice and Police Bill.
So the Bill will be considered in Committee and the usual formalities will be observed. As we know, someone will say, "Please speak for 20 minutes." If another hon. Member asks me to speak for 20 minutes, I shall go mad. I may want to speak for 20 seconds, five minutes or 25 minutes. I want to speak about things that really matter. I do not mind instructions telling me to speak for 15 minutes, except that Labour Members have been told the same thing. What type of Chamber is this? How often do hon. Members with real expertise have a chance to make a difference? It is a tragedy.
Some hon. Members may want to table new clauses on Report. Some will have something positive to say about the remaining stages of the Bill. However, I know what will happen, as does the Minister. We will not have the time. What were we elected to this place for? Was I elected to go through the Lobbies night after night? Was I elected to be told to speak for 15 minutes? Was any Member to this place elected for that? It is sad, but many of us feel that we were.
The Minister knows as well as I do that four hours on Report may not be enough for the serious debate that the Bill deserves. To force us to complete the debate in four hours is to attack the rights of Back Benchers. It is sad that we have reached this stage, which is why I repeat that this is a shameful motion.

Mr. Paul Tyler: These programme motion debates are now colloquially referred to as "pot and kettle" debates, because so much time is spent trying to pretend that the sins of the previous regime somehow mitigate those of the present regime—or vice versa.
There is however a serious issue here. The motion is defective in two important respects. The Minister made the best of a bad brief, but frankly, had he been a member of the Modernisation Committee, he would have known that his explanation this evening was misleading. The Modernisation Committee wished to make it certain that Opposition parties and Back Benchers on both sides had a real opportunity to debate issues in a Bill that were important to them.
The Government have a right to expect that their legislation will get through in due course, assuming that they maintain their majority in the House, and they may seek to put a marker down for when they want the Committee to be completed. However, they do not have a right to determine precisely what debate takes place in the intervening period.
In advance of the Second Reading of the Bill, it is ludicrous to determine precisely how much time will be required for Report and Third Reading. If the Minister made a genuine concession just now by saying that he was prepared to listen to arguments from other parts of the House about the progress of the Bill, let him say clearly now from the Dispatch Box that he is also prepared to take back to his colleagues the proposal that Report and Third Reading may also have to be extended if necessary.
This is a Bill different from many of the others that have been programmed in recent weeks. First and foremost, there has been no preliminary discussion, draft Bill or inquiry by a Committee. The House has never looked at most of the issues before. Secondly, there are huge issues that are not even in the Bill, yet which the Minister has said he intends to try to include in it. I know that amendments have already been taken to the Clerk for tabling. When preparing the programme motion, how did the Minister and his colleagues know how many amendments were to be tabled or how significant they would be? How many new clauses will be tabled by the Government to deal with issues that are outwith the Bill?
This is very much a tentative Bill; it is not by any means a complete work. There are already in excess of 132 clauses. I wager that there will be a considerable increase in that number and, if anything, we may find that the existing clauses are subject to substantial Government amendment.
The timing is absurd. To table a programme motion even before the Second Reading debate has taken place is to make an absurd presumption about the views of both Opposition Members and Government Back Benchers. I serve on the Selection Committee. On Wednesday, we will appoint the members of a Committee to consider the Bill. We will look at the contributions made by hon. Members on Second Reading. Without knowing who the Committee members will be, how can we pre-determine how they will want to handle the Bill? How can they decide how they want to handle it before they know who they are?
There is no practical reason why the Government should continue to insist on taking programme motions on the same day as Second Reading. It flies in the face of common sense and practical reality. Incidentally, if the Conservatives have not decided whether to force a vote on Second Reading, we can end up with very late votes on programme motions, directly contrary to the Modernisation Committee's intentions of trying to ensure that main votes are taken at 10 pm and not thereafter.
The motion is a bad one, and I hope that the Minister will withdraw it.

Mr. Clappison: I agree with the description applied to the motion by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins): it is shameful. He made more eloquently than I could the point that the amount of time allotted for Report will prevent many of us from contributing at that stage.
That also casts a reflection on how the Government intend to approach the Committee stage. Whoever is in government, Ministers will rarely accept in Committee amendments tabled by the Opposition. They more commonly say that they will reflect on the point and perhaps table an amendment on Report. The shortness of the time allowed for Report stage means that it will be very difficult to do that.
The Minister spoke about past guillotines. I cannot recall an occasion when a criminal justice Bill of this length has had such a short Report stage. For example, I remember that the then Opposition spent several days on Report on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill of 1994, introducing matters such as the right to silence—an important and sensitive subject that it was right to


debate—and it is interesting to see that, in government, Labour has gone back on what it said then and abolished the right to silence for 10 to 14-year-olds.
The motion suggests to me that the Government are not interested in listening to argument and certainly not interested in the details of the legislation, which is being pushed contemptuously through the House. It suggests that what really matters to them is not getting the detail right so that the legislation works in practice but all the headlines that were generated some weeks ago, before the Queen's Speech, when Cabinet Minister after Cabinet Minister was wheeled out to talk about the yob culture.
We even heard the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), when he was still one of the band of brothers, saying that the Bill was an attack on yob culture. The only time I have heard him saying something deranged is when he said that the Government were winning the war on crime. The rest of the time, he has made perfect sense.
This contemptuous motion says all that we need to know about the Government's attitude towards policy, towards the House and towards democracy.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). Indeed, I agree with all the comments by Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), about the programme motion.
I was unfortunately unable to attend the whole debate, but I heard some of the Home Secretary's remarks on the issue that worries many hon. Members: the attacks on scientific workers who practise around the country. The problem affects many constituencies, especially that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). When my right hon. Friend mentioned his anxieties about Huntingdon Life Sciences, the Home Secretary was good enough to say that he hoped to table amendments in Committee to deal with the serious problem that affects so many ordinary people around the country who feel intimidated. The headquarters of Novartis is in my constituency. I met the staff on Friday, and they are worried about what is happening.
However, the Home Secretary said that he could not give an undertaking to table amendments in Committee that are capable of dealing with that genuine problem. The public expect Parliament to respond to the serious problem of intimidation. If, for good and valid reasons, the Home Secretary is unable to table well drafted amendments in Committee because the Government have so programmed that stage of our proceedings that it must end by 8 March, there will be no other opportunity to table them. The idea that the Home Secretary will be able to table them on Report is unrealistic. If Report lasts only hours, and there is a statement on the relevant day, the debate will be truncated even more. We will then be in the farcical position that, although the Home Secretary has told the House that he wants to table the amendments and hopes to do so in Committee, after failing to do that, he is unable to do so on Report.
The Minister is a reasonable man; we believe that he is being groomed for even higher office. Would it not be bizarre if a matter of such importance could not be decided or even properly debated in the House because tonight the Government have hamstrung themselves with

a timetable motion which will prevent a serious matter from being resolved in the House? It would therefore be the responsibility of the other place to try to resolve the matter. I have great confidence in the ability of the hereditary peers to do their constitutional duty. I believe that immense wisdom reposes in their Lordships, and I have no doubt that they would be able to deal with the matter. [Interruption.] The Minister says that they are enabled to do so by birth. That is true, but they also have the wisdom of experience.

Mr. Malins: They are independent.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right.
It is not good enough for the Government to table such a motion. It is inconsistent with the Home Secretary's earlier commitment to deal with the matter to which I referred. The Government are curtailing the debate so that even if they are able to table amendments in Committee, there will be only four hours on Report for other hon. Members who are not members of the Committee to comment on important measures for dealing with intimidation at Huntingdon Life Sciences, and also with the hunt saboteurs who go round disrupting hunting in this country.

Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that some Members whose constituents are affected—perhaps even our right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)—will not be able to sit on the Committee, but will be desperately keen to attend the debate on Report—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It will not be possible for every Member with a constituency interest in the matter to be a member of the Committee, so it would be wrong if they did not have the opportunity on Report to propose new clauses or amendments on further points that needed to be dealt with.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The case that the measure is shameful is overwhelmingly made. The motion does not even meet the Government's own requirements; it puts a straitjacket on their intentions for the Bill. It undermines one's confidence in the Government's commitment to address the serious issues.
If we can deal with the problems for scientists on Report, I hope that I shall be able to raise the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875—many of whose provisions could well do with re-enactment in the Bill.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: The manner of the programme motion is not just shameful—it is scandalous. The motion brings the House into grave disrepute—as do all its predecessors during this Session.
It is an example of the complete contempt in which the Executive hold the legislature that a representative of the Executive can tell the House that he thinks there is enough time for the Committee to discuss the Bill. In a fit of seeming generosity, the Minister of State responded to an intervention by saying that, of course, if he considered that there had been serious discussion in Committee of the proposed amendments, he would generously be prepared to reconvene the Programming Sub-Committee to see whether a few more sittings could be squeezed in for the House to consider the measure. That is


an appalling example of an overweening Executive, supported by legislators on the Labour Benches who betray their duty to the people whom they represent.
The motion is a scandal. We do not yet know who is to be appointed to the Standing Committee.

Mr. Charles Clarke: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that only six Back-Bench Conservative Members contributed to the Second Reading debate?

Mr. Blunt: I am glad that the Minister made that point. He draws attention to the extraordinary fact that the number of contributions made in the debate by Members on both sides of the House reflects the relative number of Members elected to the Chamber—in other words, there were 17 speeches from Labour Members and 10 from Opposition Members, of which six were made by Conservatives. That is almost a precise reflection of the make-up of the House of Commons.
For it to be a matter of such extraordinary note that Government Back Benchers contribute to a debate in the same ratio as their election to this place shows what an idle lot they normally are, because they do not turn up to represent the interests of their own constituents. Now that we have timetabled programmes for Standing Committees, they have no excuse not to make contributions. It can make no difference to the passage of the Bill. Labour Members should be able to turn up and speak on the interests that they are supposed to represent rather than sitting in Standing Committee like a lot of jellyfish, saying nothing that would disturb the Executive.
The problem is that there is a large number of newly elected Labour Members who see their duty as simply to support the Executive. In this Parliament, legislators are betraying their duty to the people who elected them—they are betraying the House of Commons. These programme motions and the contempt they show for our legislative duty are a prime example of that. Such motions should earn the Executive the calumny that they so thoroughly deserve.

Mr. Charles Clarke: There is, of course, room for argument as to whether there should be programming. As hon. Members have pointed out, it is a serious debate and it divides the House. In my opinion, and that of the Government, programming allows more contributions from the House than would otherwise be made. That key point needs to be understood. I believe that the current system is vastly superior to what went before, when debates were curtailed and guillotined all the way through. As it happens, I respect the contributions made by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins)—

It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 137.

Division No. 88]
[10.45 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Ainger, Nick
Davis, Rt Hon Terry


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
(B'ham Hodge H)


Allen, Graham
Dean, Mrs Janet


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Denham, John


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Ashton, Joe
Doran, Frank


Austin, John
Dowd, Jim


Bailey, Adrian
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Banks, Tony
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Barnes, Harry
Edwards, Huw



Efford, Clive


Bayley, Hugh
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Ennis, Jeff


Begg, Miss Anne
Etherington, Bill


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Fisher, Mark


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Benton, Joe
Flint, Caroline


Bermingham, Gerald
Flynn, Paul


Best, Harold
Follett, Barbara


Betts, Clive
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Blackman, Liz
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Blizzard, Bob
Foulkes, George


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Gapes, Mike


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Gerrard, Neil


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Browne, Desmond
Godsiff, Roger


Buck, Ms Karen
Goggins, Paul


Burden, Richard
Golding, Mrs Llin


Burgon, Colin
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)



Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Hain, Peter


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hanson, David


Caplin, Ivor
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Healey, John


Clapham, Michael
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hendrick, Mark


Clark, Dr Lynda
Hepburn, Stephen


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hinchliffe, David


Clelland, David
Hoey, Kate


Clwyd, Ann
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hope, Phil


Cohen, Harry
Hopkins, Kelvin


Coleman, Iain
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Colman, Tony
Howells, Dr Kim


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)


Cousins, Jim
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cox, Tom
Hurst, Alan



Hutton, John


Crausby, David
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Illsley, Eric


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Cummings, John
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


(Copeland)
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Darvill, Keith
Joyce, Eric


Davidson, Ian
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Keeble, Ms Sally






Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pond, Chris


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pope, Greg


Kemp, Fraser
Pound, Stephen


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Khabra, Piara S
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kingham, Ms Tess
Primarolo, Dawn


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Purchase, Ken


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Quinn, Lawrie


Lammy, David
Rapson, Syd


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Raynsford, Nick


Lepper, David
Robertson, John


Leslie, Christopher
(Glasgow Anniesland)



Roche, Mrs Barbara


Levitt, Tom
Rogers, Allan


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Rooney, Terry


Linton, Martin
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rowlands, Ted


Lock, David
Roy, Frank


Love, Andrew
Ruddock, Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Ryan, Ms Joan


McCabe, Steve
Salter, Martin


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian
Sarwar, Mohammad


(Makerfield)
Savidge, Malcolm


McDonagh, Siobhain
Shaw, Jonathan


Macdonald, Calum
Sheerman, Barry


McDonnell, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McFall, John
Short, Rt Hon Clare


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McIsaac, Shona
Singh, Marsha


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Skinner, Dennis


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McNulty, Tony
Smith, Miss Geraldine


MacShane, Denis
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)



Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McWalter, Tony
Snape, Peter


McWilliam, John
Spellar, John


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mallaber, Judy
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stevenson, George


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Martlew, Eric
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Maxton, John
Stinchcombe, Paul


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Meale, Alan
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Merron, Gillian
Stringer, Graham


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Miller, Andrew
(Dewsbury)


Mitchell, Austin
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Moffatt, Laura
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moran, Ms Margaret
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Morley, Ellitot
Timms, Stephen


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle
Tipping, Paddy


(B'ham Yardley)
Todd, Mark


Mountford, Kali
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Mudie, George
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Mullin, Chris
Twigg, Derek (Halton)



Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Tynan, Bill


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Walley, Ms Joan


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Ward, Ms Claire


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Wareing, Robert N


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Watts, David


O'Hara, Eddie
White, Brian


Olner, Bill
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Osborne, Ms Sandra
(Swansea W)


Pearson, Ian
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Pike, Peter L
Winnick, David


Plaskitt, James
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)





Wood, Mike
Tellers for the Ayes:


Worthington, Tony



Wray, James
Mr. David Jamieson and Mr. Don Touhig.


Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Amess, David
Kirkwood, Archy


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Leigh, Edward


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Letwin, Oliver


Baldry, Tony
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Ballard, Jackie
Lidington, David


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Bercow, John
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Loughton, Tim


Blunt, Crispin
Luff, Peter


Boswell, Tim
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
McLoughlin, Patrick


Brady, Graham
Madel, Sir David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Malins, Humfrey


Browning, Mrs Angela
Mates, Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
May, Mrs Theresa


Burnett, John
Moss, Malcolm


Burns, Simon
Nicholls, Patrick


Burstow, Paul
Norman, Archie


Cash, William
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Öpik, Lembit


(Chipping Barnet)
Ottaway, Richard


Clappison, James
Page, Richard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Paice, James


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Pickles, Eric


(Rushcliffe)
Portillo, Ftt Hon Michael


Collins, Tim
Prior, David


Cotter, Brian
Randall, John


Cran, James
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Rendel, David


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Robathan, Andrew


Duncan, Alan
Ruffley, David


Duncan Smith, Iain
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Fabricant, Michael
St Aubyn, Nick


Fearn, Ronnie
Sanders, Adrian


Flight, Howard
Sayeed, Jonathan


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Soames, Nicholas



Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Fraser, Christopher
Spicer, Sir Michael


Garnier, Edward
Spring, Richard


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gibb, Nick
Stunell, Andrew


Gill, Christopher
Swayne, Desmond


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Syms, Robert


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gray, James
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Green, Damian
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Greenway, John
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Hammond, Philip
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Hancock, Mike
Townend, John


Harris, Dr Evan
Tredinnick, David


Harvey, Nick
Trend, Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Tyler, Paul


Hayes, John
Tyrie, Andrew


Heald, Oliver
Walter, Robert


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Waterson, Nigel


Horam, John
Webb, Steve


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Wells, Bowen


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Hughes, Simon (Southward N)
Whittingdale, John


Hunter, Andrew
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Wilkinson, John


Jenkin, Bernard
Willetts, David


Key, Robert
Wilshire, David






Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)



Yeo, Tim
Mr. Stephen Day and Mr. Keith Simpson.


Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND POLICE BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State for or in connection with the carrying out of his functions under that Act; and
(b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums which are payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Allen.]

The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 0.

Division No. 89]
[11 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Ainger, Nick
Clelland, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clwyd, Ann


Allen, Graham
Coffey, Ms Ann


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cohen, Harry


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Coleman, Iain


Ashton, Joe
Colman, Tony


Austin, John
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Bailey, Adrian
Corbett, Robin


Banks, Tony
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barnes, Harry
Cotter, Brian


Bayley, Hugh
Cousins, Jim


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cox, Tom


Begg, Miss Anne
Crausby, David


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bennett, Andrew F
Cummings, John


Benton, Joe
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack


Bermingham, Gerald
(Copeland)


Best, Harold
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Blackman, Liz
Dalyell, Tam


Blizzard, Bob
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Darvill, Keith


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davidson, Ian


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Browne, Desmond
Davis, Rt Hon Terry


Buck, Ms Karen
(B'ham Hodge H)


Burden, Richard
Dean, Mrs Janet


Burgon, Colin
Denham, John


Burnett, John
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Burstow, Paul
Doran, Frank


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dowd, Jim


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Edwards, Huw


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Efford, Clive


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Caplin, Ivor
Ennis, Jeff


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Etherington, Bill


Clapham, Michael
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Fisher, Mark


Clark, Dr Lynda
Fitzpatrick, Jim


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Flint, Caroline


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Flynn, Paul





Follett, Barbara
Lock, David


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Love, Andrew


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McAvoy, Thomas


Foulkes, George
McCabe, Steve


Gapes, Mike
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian


George, Andrew (St Ives)
(Makerfield)


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gerrard, Neil
Macdonald, Calum


Gibson, Dr Ian
McDonnell, John


Godsiff, Roger
McFall, John


Goggins, Paul
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Golding, Mrs Llin
McIsaac, Shona


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McNamara, Kevin


Grocott, Bruce
McNulty, Tony


Hain, Peter
MacShane, Denis


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McWalter, Tony


Hancock, Mike
McWilliam, John


Hanson, David
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Mallaber, Judy


Harris, Dr Evan
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Healey, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hendrick, Mark
Martlew, Eric


Hepburn, Stephen
Maxton, John


Heppell, John
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Meale, Alan


Hill, Keith
Merron, Gillian


Hinchliffe, David
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hoey, Kate
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hope, Phil
Miller, Andrew


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mitchell, Austin


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Moffatt, Laura


Howells, Dr Kim
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hoyle, Lindsay
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Morley, Elliot


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
(B'ham Yardley)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mountford, Kali


Hurst, Alan
Mullin, Chris


Hutton, John
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Illsley, Eric
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jamieson, David
O'Hara, Eddie


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Olner, Bill


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Öpik, Lembit


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pickthall, Colin


Joyce, Eric
Pike, Peter L


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Plaskitt, James


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pond, Chris


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pope, Greg


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pound, Stephen


Kemp, Fraser
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Khabra, Piara S
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kilfoyle, Peter
Primarolo, Dawn


Kingham, Ms Tess
Purchase, Ken


Kirkwood, Archy
Quinn, Lawrie


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rapson, Syd


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Raynsford, Nick


Lammy, David
Rendel, David


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Robertson, John


Lepper, David
(Glasgow Anniesland)


Leslie, Christopher
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Levitt, Tom
Rogers, Allan


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Rooney, Terry


Linton, Martin
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rowlands, Ted






Roy, Frank
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Ruddock, Joan
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ryan, Ms Joan
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Salter, Martin
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Sarwar, Mohammad
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Shaw, Jonathan
Timms, Stephen


Sheerman, Barry
Tipping, Paddy


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Todd, Mark


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Touhig, Don


Singh, Marsha
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Skinner, Dennis
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Tyler, Paul


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Tynan, Bill


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Ward, Ms Claire


Snape, Peter
Wareing, Robert N


Spellar, John
Watts, David


Squire, Ms Rachel
White, Brian


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Steinberg, Gerry
(Swansea W)


Stevenson, George
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Winnick, David


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wood, Mike


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Worthington, Tony


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wray, James


Stringer, Graham
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stuart, Ms Gisela



Stunell, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and Mr. Clive Betts.


(Dewsbury)





NOES


Tellers for the Noes:



Mr. David Wilshire and Mr. Eric Forth.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND POLICE BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
(a) the imposition of charges to corporation tax by provisions of that Act relating to the treatment for the purposes of the Tax Acts of the Service Authority for the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the Service Authority for the National Crime Squad; and
(b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums paid to the Secretary of State by the Central Police Training and Development Authority.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 0.

Division No. 90]
[11.12 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bayley, Hugh


Ainger, Nick
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try HE)
Begg, Miss Anne


Allen, Graham
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Bennett, Andrew F


Austin, John
Benton, Joe


Bailey, Adrian
Bermingham, Gerald


Banks, Tony
Best, Harold


Barnes, Harry
Blackman, Liz





Blizzard, Bob
Gibson, Dr Ian


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Godsiff, Roger


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Goggins, Paul


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Browne, Desmond
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Buck, Ms Karen
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Burden, Richard
Grocott, Bruce


Burgon, Colin
Hain, Peter


Burnett, John
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Burstow, Paul
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Hancock, Mike


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Hanson, David


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Harris, Dr Evan


Caplin, Ivor
Healey, John


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clapham, Michael
Hendrick, Mark


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clark, Dr Lynda
Heppell, John


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hoey, Kate


Clelland, David
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Clwyd, Ann
Hope, Phil


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cohen, Harry
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Coleman, Iain
Howells, Dr Kim


Colman, Tony
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cotter, Brian
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Cousins, Jim
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cox, Tom
Hurst, Alan


Crausby, David
Hutton, John


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Illsley, Eric


Cummings, John
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


(Copeland)
Jamieson, David


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Joyce, Eric


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davis, Rt Hon Terry
Keeble, Ms Sally


(B'ham Hodge H)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Kemp, Fraser


Denham, John
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Khabra, Piara S


Doran, Frank
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dowd, Jim
Kirkwood, Archy


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Edwards, Huw
Lammy, David


Efford, Clive
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lepper, David


Ennis, Jeff
Leslie, Christopher


Etherington, Bill
Levitt, Tom


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Fisher, Mark
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Linton, Martin


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Flint, Caroline
Lock, David


Flynn, Paul
Love, Andrew


Follett, Barbara
McAvoy, Thomas


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McCabe, Steve


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian


Foulkes, George
(Makerfield)


Gapes, Mike
McDonagh, Siobhain


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Macdonald, Calum


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
McDonnell, John


Gerrard, Neil
McFall, John






McGuire, Mrs Anne
Roy, Frank


McIsaac, Shona
Ruddock, Joan


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Ryan, Ms Joan


McNamara, Kevin
Salter, Martin


McNulty, Tony
Savidge, Malcolm


MacShane, Denis
Shaw, Jonathan


Mactaggart, Fiona
Sheerman, Barry


McWalter, Tony
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McWilliam, John
Singh, Marsha


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Skinner, Dennis


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
(Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Maxton, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Snape, Peter


Meale, Alan
Spellar, John


Merron, Gillian
Squire, Ms Rachel


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Steinberg, Gerry


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Stevenson, George


Miller, Andrew
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mitchell, Austin
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Moffatt, Laura
Stinchcombe, Paul


Moran, Ms Margaret
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Morley, Elliot
Stringer, Graham


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle
Stuart, Ms Gisela


(B'ham Yardley)
Stunell, Andrew


Mountford, Kali
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Mullin, Chris
(Dewsbury)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Temple-Morris, Peter


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


O'Hara, Eddie
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Olner, Bill
Timms, Stephen


Öpik, Lembit
Tipping, Paddy


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Todd, Mark


Pearson, Ian
Touhig, Don


Pickthall, Colin
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)



Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Pike, Peter L
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Plaskitt, James
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pond, Chris
Tyler, Paul


Pope, Greg
Tynan, Bill


Pound, Stephen
Walley, Ms Joan


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Ward, Ms Claire


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wareing, Robert N


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Watts, David


Primarolo, Dawn
White, Brian


Purchase, Ken
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Quinn, Lawrie
(Swansea W)


Rapson, Syd
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Raynstbrd, Nick
Winnick, David


Rendel, David
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Robertson, John
Wood, Mike


(Glasgow Anniesland)
Worthington, Tony


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wray, James


Rogers, Allan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff



Rooney, Terry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and Mr. Clive Betts.


Rowlands, Ted





NOES


Tellers for the Noes:



Mr. David Wilshire and Mr. Eric Forth.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

COMPANIES

That the Companies (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 3325), which were laid before this House on 19th December 2000, be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

COMPANIES

That the Open-Ended Investment Companies (Investment Companies with Variable Capital) (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 3324), which were laid before this House on 19th December 2000, be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

Motion made,
That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Hon. Members: Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,
That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 46, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 48, at the end insert the words:—
'(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. Mike Hall]

Hon. Members: Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL

Motion made,
That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Hon. Members: Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, That
1. The matter of human rights and equality in Northern Ireland, being a matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;
2. The Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 8th February at 2.30 p.m.; and
3. At that meeting—
(a) the Committee shall take questions for oral answer; and shall then consider the matter of human rights and equality in Northern Ireland, referred to it under paragraph (1) above;
(b) the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings at 5 p.m.; and
(c) at the conclusion of those proceedings a Motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be moved by a Minister of the Crown pursuant to Standing Order No. 116(5) (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings).—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — TREASURY

Ordered,
That Mrs. Liz Blackman be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Judy Mallaber be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — Fluoridation

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Mr. Bill Etherington: I begin by explaining to my hon. Friend the Minister that no discourtesy was intended on my part when I failed to get in touch with her. When I arrived this afternoon, I phoned her office and got an answerphone; I left word that I would be present at 7.15 pm but got no word back. I apologise only when I do things wrong so I am not apologising, but I regret that this has happened, because it puts a person at a disadvantage, and I would not seek to do that.
Since coming to this House in 1992, it has been my opinion that the Department of Health is absolutely paranoic in its support for fluoridation of water on the basis that it goes a long way to help reduce dental caries during the formative years of a child's growth. I am pleased to say that, since my party came to power, two significant moves have alleviated that position to some extent, although there is still a long way to go.
The first big step forward was when the Government agreed that, instead of local health authorities having the power to decide whether water should be fluoridated, it would be left to local councils to consult the people living in the area and to make a recommendation to the local health authority, which the health authority would accept.
The importance of that change is that health authorities do their work as they are told to do it by the Department of Health. There is no independence, and anyone who thinks otherwise does not have much knowledge of the Government or of those whom they appoint to do a job for them. Councils are rather different. They are, to some degree, influenced by the fact they can be removed by the people in their area, if they do not provide what the people want. That change was particularly welcome to me.
When this matter was discussed at great length in my constituency four years ago, there was a phone-in to a local newspaper in which more than 2,000 people took part. More than 90 per cent. of those who responded were against the fluoridation of water supplies. I have no fears about this matter. If we can go out and campaign fairly, I have no doubt that the public will democratically decide that they do not want fluoridation.
There was a second important factor. There must have been some doubt on the matter somewhere in the Department of Health, because last year it set up a review procedure under Professor Sheldon at York university. That review would take note of whatever evidence was available on the advantages and disadvantages of the fluoridation of water, and notice would, of course, be taken of the resulting report.
When the report came out in late autumn last year, I was delighted, as someone who is opposed to fluoridation and the secretary of the all-party parliamentary group against fluoridation. Having read the report, my view was that it in no way endorsed the views that we have been given for many years about the tremendous benefits of fluoridation, about there being no danger involved and about there being no evidence that it could be harmful.
I say to the Minister with all sincerity that I am very disappointed that the Department of Health has joined forces with the British Dental Association, the British


Medical Association and the British Fluoridation Society in a pre-emptive strike to try to undermine the report. I make no apology for reading out a letter that was sent to the Government on 10 September by Professor Sheldon. I shall read it word for word, although I do not like doing that; I like spontaneity rather than chuntering on. Professor Sheldon wrote:
In my capacity as chair of the Advisory Group for the systematic review on the effects of water fluoridation recently conducted by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York and as its founding director, I am concerned that the results of the review have been widely misrepresented. The review was exceptional in this field in that it was conducted by an independent group to the highest international scientific standards and a summary has been published in the British Medical Journal. It is particularly worrying then that statements which mislead the public about the review's findings have been made in press releases and briefings by the British Dental Association, the National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health and the British Fluoridation Society. I should like to correct some of these errors.
1 Whilst there is evidence that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries, the quality of the studies was generally moderate and the size of the estimated benefit, only of the order of 15 per cent., is far from 'massive'.
2 The review found water fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis which was not characterised as 'just a cosmetic issue'.
3 The review did not show fluoridation to be safe. The quality of the research was too poor to establish with confidence whether or not there are potentially important adverse effects in addition to the high levels of fluorosis. The report recommended that more research was needed.
4 There was little evidence to show that water fluoridation has reduced social inequalities in dental health.
5 The review could come to no conclusion as to the cost-effectiveness of water fluoridation or whether there are different effects between natural or artificial fluoridation.
6 Probably because of the rigour with which this review was conducted, these findings are more cautious and less conclusive than in most previous reviews.
7 The review team was surprised that in spite of the large number of studies carried out over several decades there is a dearth of reliable evidence with which to inform policy. Until high quality studies are undertaken providing more definite evidence, there will continue to be legitimate scientific controversy over the likely effects and costs of water fluoridation."
I pay tribute to Lord Baldwin, who has been an inspiration to all those who are worried about water fluoridation. I shall now pick out one or two highlights from a piece by Jerome Burne in the Financial Times on 27 January. The article is headed "Fluoridation findings set teeth gnashing" and says:
A systematic research review has failed to find reliable evidence that it works, but doctors and dentists are refusing to accept the fact".
I do not have time to read out the whole article, but it also says:
Anyone who thinks this report a ringing endorsement is either scientifically illiterate or dishonest".
Those are not my words, but I certainly go along with them.
Several statements have been made since the York review. I shall call it that because everyone—not that many are here—will understand it. The BDA said:
The review … confirms that water fluoridation is safe and effective.

The York review said:
The studies included for [effectiveness] were of moderate quality (level B [moderate risk of bias]), and limited quantity.
John Hunt, chief executive of the BDA, refers to the
compelling evidence provided by the review",
but the review says:
Any future research … [should use] … appropriate methodology to improve the quality of the existing evidence base.
The BDA says:
The report confirms that there is clear evidence that fluoridation reduces [decay].
The York review says:
To have clear confidence in the ability to answer the question [on caries reduction], the quality of the evidence would need to be higher.
The BDA says:
The report confirms that fluoridation reduces dental health inequalities … [and] significantly narrows the dental health gap".
The York review, in its executive summary conclusions, says:
The research evidence is of insufficient quality to allow confident statements about other potential harms [than dental fluorosis] or whether there is an impact on social inequalities.
The BDA says:
There is no evidence that water fluoridation is linked to cancer, bone disease, or any other adverse effect.
The York review says:
High quality research [into adverse effects] that takes confounding factors into account is needed.
The BDA says:
Dental fluorosis is recognised by the York review as a cosmetic issue, not a health problem.
The York review says:
This is nowhere to be found in the report. The lead researcher confirms 'we … did not say it was a cosmetic issue.
The BDA says:
projections in the review estimate that fluoridation might … increase … dental fluorosis of 'aesthetic concern' … to around 10 per cent.
The York review says:
The proportion who have teeth that are affected enough to cause aesthetic concern is approximately 12.5 per cent.
That is pretty good for the BDA: it was only 25 per cent. out on that issue, whereas on all the others it was nearly 100 per cent. out. I could go on indefinitely with those quotations, but I shall not.
According to a BDA parliamentary newsletter, the York review
confirmed that water fluoridation is safe and effective".
The York review replied:
Interpreting the results of studies of other possible negative effects is very difficult because of the small numbers of studies … and poor study quality … other potential adverse effects"—
other than dental fluorosis, that is
may take longer to occur, or may occur largely in an adult population … High quality research is needed.
I think I have made my point in that regard, but the Department of Health, which commissioned the report, has made statements on one or two issues. It has said:
This report clearly shows that fluoridating water helps to reduce tooth decay.
The York review said:
The studies included
for effectiveness—
were of moderate quality … and limited quantity … Only one study addressed the positive effect of fluoridation in the adult population. Assessment of the long-term benefits of water fluoridation is needed.
According to the Department of Health,
The findings show that water fluoridation improves dental health".
The York review said:
it is surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken.
Perhaps the most surprising aspect involves a statement by the British Fluoridation Society, which compared dental health in fluoridated Sandwell with that in unfluoridated Bolton. to Bolton' s disadvantage. According to the York review:
Crude league tables cannot be scientific, as they do not control for other variables. Ireland for example, most heavily fluoridated in Europe, ranks below 4 unfluoridated countries for dental health in 12-year-olds.
I have quoted quite enough, and I want to give the Minister a chance to reply—after all, she has already suffered one disadvantage—but I think that the present situation is untenable. I want the Department of Health not to try to rubbish reports that it has commissioned, and to ensure that what goes out to the public uses such reports in their proper context. I consider it scandalous for a Government Department to act in such a way: I cannot put it more strongly than that.
This is nothing short of deception. It is not for me to say whether it constitutes a deliberate attempt to mislead people—I leave others to judge that—but I know that it does mislead people. Despite all its problems, most of the population have a high regard for the Department of Health; I have myself, but not on this issue. It is about time the Department took another look at the matter.
I should like to know why we are about the only European country that tolerates the poison that is put into our water—for that is what we are talking about: it is a poison, nothing else. The Government themselves have said that fluorosis is a sign of toxicity, although people are saying that it is only cosmetic.
Let me say to the Minister again, in all honesty and sincerity, that if we do not get this matter right there will be a public backlash that will make many other recent events seem fairly small. There has been a bad misjudgment for many years, and it is time that it was corrected.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) on securing this debate on the important issue of oral health. The subject provokes strong reactions, both for and against the fluoridation of water supplies. His speech showed great passion, but I accept

that he has never intended any discourtesy. I am just sorry that we were not able previously to speak about the subject so that I could address the specific issues that he has raised.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's record on the issue. Not only has he expressed his concerns in today's Adjournment debate, but he has a long track record of tabling parliamentary questions on the issue. He also paid tribute to Lord Baldwin, who in the past few months has pursued the issue in the other place.
The United Kingdom has seen dramatic improvements in health, and that includes oral health. Last July, to build on those improvements, the Government published the NHS plan, which is the most far-reaching reform programme in the history of the national health service. Part of the plan details how we intend to redesign the NHS around patients and deliver fast and accessible care. We should remember that the fluoridation debate has arisen because we wanted to improve dental health.
In September, the dental strategy "Modernising NHS Dentistry—Implementing the NHS Plan" dealt in greater detail with oral health matters. The strategy essentially will
give the next generation a healthier start with oral hygiene that will benefit them throughout their lives".
The strategy also has the support of the British Dental Association's recently published five-point plan, which includes a comprehensive programme to improve oral health and reduce inequalities.
Quite apart from the fluoridation issue, which I shall address in a moment, I should like to assure my hon. Friend that the Government are determined to address oral health inequalities and to allow everyone who wants it access to NHS dentistry. At the front door to those services will be NHS Direct. When it goes live for dentistry, NHS Direct will be a convenient route for patients to access NHS dentistry whether for urgent or routine treatment. No matter where in the country one lives, one telephone call to NHS Direct or logging on to NHS Direct Online will enable one to find the nearest NHS dentist or dental access centre.
Additionally, NHS Direct will provide information on self-care and patients' rights and charges, so that patients are fully informed about dental treatment and services. Currently, two pilot projects—one in the south-west and the other in the north-east, which covers the Newcastle and north Tyneside area—are testing NHS Direct's ability to direct callers to dental treatment. NHS Direct will also provide useful information and feedback to health authorities about dental services, ensuring that access difficulties are identified and dealt with in all parts of the country, and will help to tackle inequality in dental services.
However good the access to dental treatment is, people still need help in reducing their need for restorative treatment. Oral health is central to healthy living and contributes to the well-being of us all. We know that children who start brushing their teeth in infancy are less likely to experience tooth decay than those who start brushing later. We also know that using fluoride toothpaste is an effective way of preventing decay.
We cannot, however, be complacent, and I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that the Government are not complacent on the issue. Later I shall outline in more


detail what we are doing as a result of the York research. However, the fact is that more than half the country's 15-year-olds still experience decay in their permanent teeth. We also have very good evidence that significant inequalities remain throughout the population. Children from deprived communities, for example, including some black and minority ethnic communities, are less likely to visit a dentist regularly. Even at regional level, there are major differences in the levels of tooth decay in children.
In 1999, for example, five-year-olds in the west midlands had on average less than half the number of decayed, missing or filled primary teeth than those in the north-west. Moreover, 19 per cent. more five-year-olds in the west midlands had no tooth decay at all compared with their counterparts in the north-west. A similar picture emerges in relation to 12-year-olds and their permanent teeth.
The challenge for local health authorities is how to improve oral health generally and to tackle those inequalities in health status. Reducing inequalities in dental health is not easy. One option that was considered was to add fluoride to school milk. A number of health authorities—such as Knowsley, St. Helens and the Wirral, where water is not fluoridated—are currently running pilot schemes. However, although those are worthwhile initiatives, for the best benefits children need to start using fluoride before the age at which they start school. That is why successive Governments have preferred the further option of fluoridating the water supply in areas with high levels of dental decay. It is the view of dental professionals that the fluoridation of water offers the most effective means of reducing tooth decay.
As the recent review of the evidence shows, fluoridation of the water supply to the optimum level of one part in a million can significantly reduce the amount of tooth decay in children from similar backgrounds. About 500,000 people in this country receive water that is naturally fluoridated at, or about, this level. I was interested in the reports about the mottling of teeth. One of my children has mottling, simply by virtue of growing up in a part of Essex which has extremely high natural levels of fluoride.
A further 1 million people receive water which is naturally fluoridated at a lower level, but which still provides some dental benefit. These areas are generally found in a band running down the eastern side of the country, from Hartlepool in the north, down to parts of Essex. Some 5 million people receive water where the fluoride content has been artificially increased to this level. Major schemes are in operation in Birmingham and throughout the west midlands, and also in Tyneside.
Successive Governments have recognised that fluoridation is an important and effective method of protecting the population from tooth decay. In "Modernising NHS Dentistry", we quoted the example of Sandwell, which is next to my constituency. The water supply there was fluoridated in 1986. Over the following 10 years, the amount of tooth decay in children had more than halved. During the same period, Bolton—an area with a similar population mix, but without fluoridated water—saw little change in its children's oral health.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the example of Ireland and I will look at the comparison he raised. That example has been replicated in many other places

over the past 50 years. Sadly, it is also true that where fluoridation schemes have been withdrawn—in Anglesey and Kilmarnock, for example—levels of tooth decay in children have risen after having fallen during the periods of fluoridation.
Nevertheless, we have a duty—as my hon. Friend forcefully reminded me—to examine carefully any claims that there are risks which may be attached to fluoridation, as well as benefits. It was for this reason that we commissioned the NHS centre for reviews and dissemination at the university of York to review the evidence on the relationship between fluoride and health. The report of the review was published last October.
The review confirmed that fluoridating water helps to reduce tooth decay and that there is no clear evidence of other adverse effects on general health associated with water fluoridation. The only problem identified was the cosmetic side effect of fluoridation—dental fluorosis. The report did, however, identify the need for more good-quality research on the effect of water fluoridation.
The final decision on implementing fluoridation schemes rests with the water undertaker. The Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985 was consolidated in the Water Industry Act (1991), section 87(i) of which states:
Where a Health Authority has applied in writing to a water undertaker for the water supplied within an area specified in the application to be fluoridated, that undertaker may, while the application remains in force, increase the fluoride content of the water supplied by the undertaker within that area.
Since 1985, nearly half of all health authorities in England have requested water companies to introduce water fluoridation. None of these requests has been accepted. The reason for that is, quite simply, that none of the water companies has exercised the discretion to agree to a health authority's request. The key issue here is whether the "may" should become "shall".
We have been encouraged by the readiness with which the water industry has indicated that it is prepared to look again at both the legal and practical problems around fluoridation. What the water operators want, above anything else, is clarity over the distribution of responsibilities. They have emphasised that their primary duty is to provide a sufficient and wholesome supply of water. They consider that the question of whether a water supply should also contribute to wider public health objectives should be for the health service to decide. When a fluoridation scheme is approved, the health service meets the operational costs and indemnifies the water operator against any unforeseen cost consequences. There is little that we can disagree with in that.
How, then, are we to proceed? I have seen evidence in the west midlands that fluoridation can reduce dental decay, but there is strong public opinion against it. My hon. Friend cited a radio phone-in. National opinion polls show that about 70 per cent. are in favour of fluoridation, but environmentalists have considerable concerns. The York study showed that there are some shortcomings.
Oral health measures, such as regular brushing with fluoride toothpaste, can achieve good results, but experience shows that the best reduction in dental decay, particularly among deprived communities, is achieved when the fluoride is added to the water, so we will


encourage health authorities in areas of high dental decay to consider holding consultations with local people to discuss current views on fluoridation, in light of the York report's findings. No community would or should be required to fluoridate unless there is a significant majority in favour.
The York report highlighted the need for more good-quality research. We have asked the Medical Research Council to suggest where it might be possible to strengthen the evidence currently available. It is certainly not our intention to cover the same ground, but rather to give advice on how to fill in the gaps identified in the York report. We are also discussing the report with representatives of the water industry. When the discussions are complete, we will review the need for legislation.
The MRC has provisionally agreed terms of reference stating that it should
Provide advice on current scientific evidence regarding the health effects of water fluoridation …
Consider whether further research in this area is required to inform public health policy …

Report to the MRC Physiological Medicine and Infections Board and the MRC Health Services and Public Health Research Board
and
Report to the Department of Health.
The MRC has let us know that its working group may want to refine those terms of reference. Its first meeting will be in February.
Any proposals for change will, of course, be brought to the House and right hon. and hon. Members will have the opportunity to debate further this sensitive issue before any decisions are reached. We are clear that we need a good, solid evidence base, but we are also clear that we need the support of the public. The two elements will go forward in tandem.
I respect my hon. Friend's strong views. I hope that he is reassured by the fact that we are commissioning further research to fill in the gaps clearly identified in the York study. I thank him warmly for raising the issue tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Twelve midnight.